Most fail on causation: the court accepts something went wrong but is not persuaded that better care would have changed the outcome.
Claim failed
[2026] EWCC 50·2026·Liability decided at trial
A widow brought a dependency and bereavement claim against the hospital after her husband died from an infection picked up during heart surgery. Because he had already settled his own claim in full against the equipment manufacturer while alive, the court held no Fatal Accidents Act claim survived for his dependants.
A dependant's claim under the Fatal Accidents Act only exists if the deceased could still have sued at the moment of death. Settling a claim in the patient's lifetime can extinguish the family's later dependency claim, so settlement terms need careful thought where death is foreseeable.
Claim failed
[2026] EWHC 704 (KB)·2026·Liability decided at trial
During long spinal surgery for scoliosis and chest wall deformity the claimant deteriorated, arrested while being turned over, and was left with severe sight loss. He alleged the anaesthetist negligently failed to treat a raised potassium reading, but the judge found that reading was spurious and the arrest was caused by a pulmonary embolism, so the claim failed.
Even after a devastating complication a claim fails if the court finds the true cause was a non-negligent event, so proving the mechanism of injury is often the decisive issue.
Claim failed
[2026] EWHC 560 (KB)·2026·Liability decided at trial
A mother's waters broke at 27 weeks and a swab grew Group B Streptococcus resistant to erythromycin; the child argued penicillin should have been given before birth to prevent infection-related brain injury. The court held that following national rather than local guidance was not negligent and that antibiotics would not, on the evidence, have prevented the injury.
Following national guidance is a strong defence even where a hospital's own local guidance says otherwise. In premature-birth cases causation often fails because the injury would have happened regardless.
Claim failed
[2025] EWHC 3402 (KB)·2025·Liability decided at trial
The claimant alleged the registrar at the Princess of Wales Hospital, Bridgend, delayed delivery after a pathological CTG in a labour complicated by pre-eclampsia and an impacted fetal head. The judge found the plan of fetal blood sampling, attempted forceps and then caesarean met the standards of the day and dismissed the claim.
A poor outcome after a difficult delivery is not enough; the claimant must show specific decisions fell below acceptable practice at the time and that earlier action would have avoided the injury. The material contribution argument does not help if no negligent cause of delay is proved.
Claim failed
[2025] EWHC 2576 (KB)·2025·Liability decided at trial
After a sleeve gastrectomy the claimant had trouble swallowing; the surgeon performed a gastroscopy and balloon dilatation, after which the sleeve leaked. The judge found no breach of duty in the post-operative care or the dilatation and dismissed the claim despite the very serious consequences.
A bad outcome after a recognised complication is not enough; the claimant must show the treatment decision fell outside what a responsible body of surgeons would do. Sympathy for the patient does not change the legal test.
Claim failed
[2025] EWHC 2597 (KB)·2025·Liability decided at trial
An orthopaedic surgeon had a second stroke and the on-call stroke consultant, assessing by telephone because the video link was broken, decided against clot-busting treatment. The judge found documentation was poor but that thrombolysis would probably not have changed the outcome, and rejected the defendants' allegation that the claimant had faked his test results.
Poor record-keeping and a remote consultation do not win a case on their own; the claimant must show the missed treatment would have made a real difference. A defence of dishonesty needs solid evidence and failed here.
Claim failed
[2025] EWHC 2025 (KB)·2025·Liability decided at trial
The claimant developed anal stenosis after a private haemorrhoidectomy and argued her haemorrhoids had been over-graded, non-surgical options were not discussed and the stenosis risk was not explained. The judge found the grading was correct, alternatives were discussed and the risk was disclosed on the consent form and in the information leaflet, so the claim was dismissed.
Documented consent, including a signed form and a written leaflet naming the specific complication, can be decisive in defeating a Montgomery consent claim.
Claim failed
[2025] EWHC 1907 (KB)·2025·Liability decided at trial
A 27-year-old flight attendant saw her GP with severe back and leg pain, having mentioned perianal numbness in a message two days earlier; she had emergency surgery for cauda equina syndrome four days after the consultation. The judge accepted that the GP asked the right red-flag questions and that the patient answered no, so there was no breach of duty.
In cauda equina cases the court looks closely at what safety-netting questions the GP actually asked and what the patient answered on the day. Contemporaneous notes and messages matter greatly for both sides.
Claim failed
[2024] EWHC 2338 (KB)·2024·Liability decided at trial
Admitted with perforated diverticulitis, the claimant had a laparoscopic washout and deteriorated about 36 hours later, needing an emergency Hartmann's procedure with a stoma and intensive care. She alleged she had asked for a colorectal referral, was improperly moved to private care and was not properly consented, but the judge found none of this proved and dismissed the claims against both the surgeon and the trust.
Consent disputes turn on evidence of what was actually discussed; where the records and the surgeon's account show the alternative procedure was explained, a claim based on inadequate consent is likely to fail.
Claim failed
[2024] EWHC 2023 (KB)·2024·Liability decided at trial
The mother's recorded history of kidney scarring was said to require consultant-led care and serial growth scans, which were not arranged; the baby was born prematurely at Solihull Hospital with brain damage. The judge held that classifying the pregnancy as low risk was within acceptable practice in 2008, so there was no breach of duty.
Antenatal risk-assessment claims turn on whether the mother's history genuinely required extra monitoring under the guidance of the time. Hindsight that scans might have helped is not the legal test.
Claim failed
[2024] EWHC 2011 (KB)·2024·Liability decided at trial
Ms Spellman alleged a hospital radiologist missed cauda equina compression on an MRI scan taken the day after her fall, delaying diagnosis until private surgery six days later. Damages had been agreed at £300,000 if she won, but the judge found the scan showed only mild stenosis with no compression to be found, so the claim failed.
Parties sometimes agree the damages figure in advance and fight only liability, so a claimant who loses on breach of duty recovers nothing. Expert evidence on what the scan actually showed was decisive.
Claim failed
[2024] EWHC 1800 (KB)·2024·Liability decided at trial
A widower claimed that doctors at Southampton General misdiagnosed his wife's rare cerebral venous thrombosis as a stroke, gave her clot-busting drugs and delayed the correct treatment, leading to her death. The judge found the clinicians acted reasonably on the presentation and that even earlier correct treatment would probably not have saved her.
A tragic outcome after a rare condition is missed does not by itself prove negligence; the question is whether a reasonable body of doctors would have acted the same way on the information available. Causation must be proved separately.
Claim failed
[2024] UKSC 1·2024·Appeal decision
Three families sought damages for psychiatric injury after watching a relative die from a condition that doctors had negligently failed to diagnose. The Supreme Court (Lord Burrows dissenting) held that doctors do not owe relatives a duty to protect them from the shock of witnessing a patient's death or medical crisis.
Relatives who develop a psychiatric illness from witnessing a loved one's death caused by medical negligence generally cannot claim as secondary victims. Their remedies are limited to the Fatal Accidents Act dependency and bereavement claims.
Claim failed
[2023] EWHC 3163 (KB)·2023·Liability decided at trial
Ms Beatty, in hospital with severe cellulitis, developed ischaemic toes; a vascular surgeon diagnosed vasculitis rather than an embolism and did not order a CT angiogram, and she later needed a below-knee amputation. The judge found the surgeon's diagnosis was supported by a responsible body of medical opinion and dismissed the claim.
A diagnosis that turns out to be wrong is not automatically negligent; if a responsible body of specialists would have reached the same view on the information available, the claim fails under the Bolam test.
Claim failed
[2023] EWHC 2803 (KB)·2023·Liability decided at trial
Mr Ward's stomach was perforated during keyhole removal of a gastric band; the hole was not seen during the operation and was repaired the following morning after he deteriorated. The judge found the perforation was not visible at the time and so there was no negligent failure to identify and repair it.
A perforation missed during surgery is only negligent if there was visible evidence the surgeon should have seen. Post-operative pain that leads to timely re-operation may not give rise to a claim.
Claim failed
[2023] EWHC 1304 (KB)·2023·Liability decided at trial
During surgery for a giant calcified thoracic disc the surgeon changed from the planned approach to opening the dura, and the patient was left partially paralysed. The judge found the change of approach and the surgical technique were supported by a responsible body of neurosurgical opinion and dismissed the claim.
Changing surgical plan mid-operation is not negligent where the alternative is a recognised, logical approach. Catastrophic outcomes from high-risk spinal surgery do not by themselves establish a breach of duty.
Claim failed
[2023] EWHC 1199 (KB)·2023·Liability decided at trial
A baby born at James Cook University Hospital was discharged two days after birth and died of GBS meningitis and sepsis. The judge found only one limited breach (a missing piece of discharge advice) and that it did not cause the death because the mother would not have returned to hospital in time.
Even where a hospital gets something wrong, the claim fails unless the mistake is shown to have changed what happened. Record-keeping failings alone did not establish causation here.
Claim failed
[2023] EWHC 1911 (KB)·2023·Liability decided at trial
A woman attended a GP drop-in clinic with groin pain after an injection had missed the vein; the GP diagnosed a haematoma and sent her away with painkillers, and days later she was admitted with necrotising fasciitis and her right leg was amputated at the hip. The judge found the GP's examination and diagnosis were ones a reasonable body of GPs would support, so the claim failed despite the defendant accepting that referral would have saved her leg.
Even where a devastating outcome and causation are accepted, a claim fails unless the clinician's decision fell outside what a responsible body of practitioners would have done. A properly documented history and examination that reasonably excluded infection was a complete defence.
Claim failed
[2023] EWHC 156 (KB)·2023·Liability decided at trial
A three-year-old was diagnosed with tonsillitis by a GP registrar, deteriorated over the next two days and was then referred to hospital, where meningococcal meningitis was diagnosed. The court found no causative breach of duty and dismissed the claim.
Meningitis claims against GPs often fail because early symptoms genuinely resemble common childhood infections; the claimant must show both that the GP fell below a reasonable standard and that earlier referral would have changed the outcome.
Claim failed
[2022] EWHC 2981 (KB)·2022·Liability decided at trial
Mr Middleton's acutely ischaemic leg was diagnosed at lunchtime but bypass surgery did not happen until after midnight, about 14 hours later. The judge found it was reasonable to obtain CT imaging first and that surgery by mid-afternoon was not mandatory, and that earlier surgery would not have prevented the nerve injury in any event.
Obtaining imaging before emergency vascular surgery can be reasonable practice, and a claim fails unless earlier treatment would probably have avoided the injury.
Claim failed
[2022] EWHC 2735 (KB)·2022·Liability decided at trial
A man with end-stage kidney failure was given a single 400mg gentamicin dose for a chest infection and suffered permanent balance and hearing damage. His sister's claim failed because the judge accepted that a high dose was a reasonable choice for a worsening infection with sepsis risk, despite his renal impairment.
A drug dose that causes known side-effects is not automatically negligent if it was a reasonable clinical judgement in the circumstances. Departing from a hospital guideline is not itself proof of negligence.
Claim failed
[2022] EWHC 949 (QB)·2022·Liability decided at trial
A former lorry driver with a history of pulmonary embolism attended A&E and clinics in 2015 with chest pain and calf symptoms; the Trust admitted it should have done a Wells score and imaging at the first visit. The judge found he did not actually have a clot on that date and that the later reduction of his apixaban was not negligent, so the claim failed.
An admitted failure to investigate only leads to compensation if the investigation would have found something. Normal D-dimer results were decisive evidence against a missed clot.
Claim failed
[2022] EWHC 148 (QB)·2022·Liability decided at trial
A 29-year-old with sudden facial droop, speech problems and arm weakness was told by a junior A&E doctor she had migraine and was not referred to the TIA clinic, which the Trust admitted was a breach. Ritchie J found her March symptoms were in fact hemiplegic migraine, not mini-strokes, so the missed referral did not cause her later stroke.
Admitted breach of duty is not enough; the claimant must prove the correct pathway would have prevented the injury. Detailed findings about the exact sequence of symptoms decided this case.
Claim failed
[2022] EWHC 100 (QB)·2022·Liability decided at trial
After routine day-case removal of a scrotal cyst, the claimant returned in the early hours in severe pain; intravenous antibiotics were not started when they should have been and an ultrasound request was delayed, and he was later diagnosed with Fournier gangrene, needing repeated surgery and losing both testicles. The judge found breach of duty but held the claimant could not prove the delays changed the outcome.
Proving that care fell below standard is only half the case: the claimant must also show the negligence made a difference. Where surgery would have happened at the same time anyway, delayed antibiotics or scans may not be shown to have caused the injury.
Claim failed£1.4M
[2021] UKSC 21·2021·Appeal decision
A GP negligently failed to arrange proper testing, so a woman wrongly believed she did not carry the haemophilia gene and went on to have a son with haemophilia who also had autism. The Supreme Court held the GP was liable only for the haemophilia-related costs, because the purpose of the advice was to guard against that risk, not the unrelated risk of autism.
Damages are limited to losses falling within the scope of the duty the doctor undertook. Even where negligence clearly led to a child's birth, unrelated conditions that the advice was never meant to address are not recoverable.
Claim failed
[2021] EWHC 643 (QB)·2021·Liability decided at trial
The executors of Mrs Neill argued her surgeon should have enlarged the aortic root to fit a larger valve rather than implant a 19mm mechanical valve, and failed to warn her about that option. Eady J found the valve choice was not negligent and, although the possibility of root enlargement should have been mentioned, it would have made no difference to her decision.
A consent failure only leads to compensation if the patient would have made a different choice with proper information. Surgical decisions supported by a responsible body of opinion are not negligent just because another surgeon would have done differently.
Claim failed
[2021] EWHC 323 (QB)·2021·Liability decided at trial
A teacher with a back injury attended A&E and was referred for a routine MRI; the scan two weeks later showed a disc prolapse and she had emergency surgery but was left with permanent damage. The court found the registrar was not negligent in not suspecting cauda equina at that visit, and that her condition had not materially worsened during the delay.
Not every back-pain patient with some red-flag features must be scanned urgently; the court looks at the full picture presented at the time. Claimants must also prove the delay itself made the outcome worse.
Claim failed
[2020] EWHC 3445 (QB)·2020·Liability decided at trial
A two-and-a-half-year-old girl seen at a Badger out-of-hours centre was diagnosed with a sore throat and sent home; two days later scans showed hydrocephalus and brain abnormalities needing emergency neurosurgery, leaving her profoundly disabled. This judgment decided only whether the NHS commissioning body was legally responsible for the nurse practitioner's alleged negligence, and held it was not.
When an NHS body contracts an outside provider to run out-of-hours services, the NHS body does not automatically carry a non-delegable duty for that provider's clinicians. Claims must be brought against the clinician and the out-of-hours provider themselves.
Claim failed
[2020] EWHC 3333 (QB)·2020·Liability decided at trial
After removal of a spinal cord tumour, nursing charts appeared to show neurological deterioration two days post-op, but the surgeon was not alerted; four days later the patient suffered sudden permanent paralysis. The court accepted the clinicians' assessments that there was no real deterioration until the final day, so earlier escalation would not have changed the outcome.
Nursing observation charts alone may not prove deterioration if contemporaneous clinical examinations showed improvement. Even a failure to escalate must be shown to have changed the outcome.
Claim failed
[2020] EWHC 310 (QB)·2020·Liability decided at trial
Ms Pepper argued she had only agreed to a Whipple's operation if an intra-operative biopsy proved cancer, and the biopsy was negative. The judge found she had consented to surgery if the biopsy was positive or the pancreas looked suspicious, that intra-operative biopsies are known to be unreliable, and dismissed the claim.
Consent disputes turn on what was actually agreed before surgery, and courts give weight to contemporaneous notes and what a reasonable patient would have decided. A negative result on an unreliable test does not by itself make surgery negligent.
Claim failed
[2020] EWHC 359 (QB)·2020·Appeal decision
A 65-year-old inpatient who became confused at night fell out of bed and hurt her knees, and she argued that bed rails should have been fitted. The trial judge found that rails had not been recommended and would have been removed anyway, and the High Court refused to disturb those findings.
Bed rails are not automatically the safe option, because they can create their own risks for a confused and mobile patient. An appeal court will rarely overturn a trial judge's findings about what nursing staff decided or would have decided.
Claim failed
[2020] EWHC 158 (QB)·2020·Liability decided at trial
After an appendectomy a woman developed an abdominal mass that scans labelled a harmless omental infarction; it was actually a rare bacterial infection that later formed an abscess needing surgery. The judge accepted an early biopsy would have avoided this but held the doctors were not negligent in not doing one.
Hindsight showing that a test would have helped is not the same as proving it was negligent not to do it. Unusual infections that mimic benign findings on scans are a recognised trap for both clinicians and claimants.
Claim failed
[2019] EWHC 2488 (QB)·2019·Liability decided at trial
The claimant was discharged two days after a sleeve gastrectomy despite nausea, vomiting and pain, and weeks later developed severe sepsis from a leak. The judge found the discharge and follow-up were not negligent and that earlier action would not have changed the outcome.
Early discharge after bariatric surgery is not negligent if symptoms at the time were within the expected range. Claims fail if the leak would have developed and been treated the same way regardless.
Claim failed
[2019] EWHC 2280 (QB)·2019·Liability decided at trial
The mother argued the consultant should not have confidently reported a normal brain structure on the anomaly scan when the images were unclear. The judge accepted the consultant had scanned carefully and that a responsible body of specialists would have reached the same view, so negligence was not proved.
A missed abnormality on an antenatal scan is not automatically negligence; the claimant must show no responsible specialist would have reported as the clinician did. Careful, well-documented scanning is a strong defence.
Claim failed
[2019] EWHC 1043 (QB)·2019·Liability decided at trial
A 4.93kg baby's shoulder became stuck at delivery and the registrar used moderate downward traction to free her, causing a permanent brachial plexus injury. The judge found that traction of that kind was accepted practice in 1992, even though it is now avoided, so the claim failed.
Negligence is judged by the standards at the time of the birth, not today's guidance, which is decisive in many historic Erb's palsy claims. An agreed damages figure is worth nothing unless breach of duty is proved.
Claim failed
[2019] EWHC 832 (QB)·2019·Liability decided at trial
A 38-year-old woman with a hard breast lump had a mammogram and ultrasound that looked benign and was discharged without a biopsy; cancer was found in 2013. Yip J accepted that a responsible body of breast surgeons would not have biopsied on those findings.
Triple assessment does not always require a biopsy where imaging is reassuring. A later cancer diagnosis does not by itself prove the earlier clinic decision was negligent.
Claim failed
[2018] EWHC 1345 (QB)·2018·Liability decided at trial
A man with back pain and new groin numbness phoned his GP, who told him to go to A&E rather than ringing the hospital orthopaedic team directly. Master Cook found the GP had credible expert support for that approach and struck out the claim against him.
Sending a suspected cauda equina patient to A&E by ambulance can be a defensible GP response. A GP claim will fail at an early stage if a responsible body of GPs would have done the same.
Claim failed
[2018] EWHC 343 (QB)·2018·Liability decided at trial
Five days after surgery to reverse his ileostomy the 60-year-old claimant developed sepsis and his whole colon had to be removed because its blood supply had failed. He alleged the surgeon had damaged the marginal artery, but Yip J was not satisfied that the injury was caused by negligence rather than a naturally occurring clot.
A serious complication after bowel surgery is not itself proof of negligence; the claimant must show on the balance of probabilities that a surgical error, rather than an unavoidable event, caused the harm.
Claim failed
[2017] EWCA Civ 1711·2017·Appeal decision
A man treated in the early 1980s sued in 2014, saying no one followed up his hormone condition until a new doctor restarted treatment in 2011. The Court of Appeal found he had known enough back in 1983 and that a 28-year delay had destroyed the records needed to defend the case.
Where very long delay means the records that would show what actually happened no longer exist, the court will usually hold the claimant to the deadline. Realising only years later that better treatment existed does not by itself restart the clock.
Claim failed
[2017] EWHC 1900 (QB)·2017·Liability decided at trial
After a heart attack and angioplasty, Mrs Lane developed a blocked artery in her right arm; it was diagnosed at 02:30 but she was not transferred to the vascular unit until the morning and thrombectomy was done that evening. The judge found the delays and surgery were not negligent and that, in any event, the arm was successfully reperfused so the later amputation was not caused by any delay.
Delay alone is not enough: a claimant must show both that the delay fell below a reasonable standard and that earlier treatment would have changed the outcome. Deferring surgery for an unstable cardiac patient can be a reasonable clinical judgment.
Claim failed
[2016] EWHC 1729 (QB)·2016·Liability decided at trial
After a radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer the patient developed an abscess and a narrowed ureter, and later lost a kidney; she alleged the bowel was perforated at surgery and that urologists should have been involved in a second operation. The judge preferred the hospital's explanation for the infection and found no negligence in either operation.
Ureteric and kidney damage after pelvic surgery is not automatically negligent; the court will examine the most likely mechanism. Expert evidence on the cause of infection is often decisive.
Claim failed
[2016] EWHC 1214 (QB)·2016·Liability decided at trial
A patient with a prosthetic aortic valve had abnormal inflammatory markers on blood tests in November 2010; his GP arranged a routine appointment rather than urgent hospital admission and he suffered a stroke from endocarditis in January 2011. The judge found the results did not ground a reasonable suspicion of endocarditis and the GP's response was one a reasonable body of GPs would take.
Abnormal blood results must be acted on, but the level of urgency required depends on what a reasonable GP would have suspected at the time; a routine review can be acceptable where the overall picture did not point to a serious diagnosis.
Claim failed
[2016] EWHC 1101 (QB)·2016·Liability decided at trial
A mother alleged that a registrar negligently failed to spot on an ultrasound that a substantial piece of placenta had been left behind after birth, leading to infection and an emergency operation two weeks later. The parties agreed the claim depended on proving a substantial (about 7 cm) piece was retained, and the judge was not persuaded of that on the evidence.
Retained placenta claims often turn on what the scan would actually have shown; if the retained tissue was small, a missed scan finding may not be negligent. Agreed thresholds for success can decide a case.
Claim failed
[2016] EWHC 351 (QB)·2016·Liability decided at trial
A woman with cystitis took a leftover antibiotic, vomited for days and drank large amounts of water; she saw two GPs on the same day and collapsed with seizures early the next morning with a sodium level of 105. Hickinbottom J held neither GP was required to admit her to hospital on what they saw, and the claim was dismissed.
A GP is judged on the symptoms presented at the time, not on what a later blood test revealed. Persistent vomiting alone did not oblige hospital admission on these facts.
Claim failed
[2016] EWHC 331 (QB)·2016·Liability decided at trial
A teenager with back pain had a lumbar microdiscectomy and afterwards developed cauda equina syndrome. She argued the surgeon should have sought a second opinion and consented her properly; the court rejected the criticisms and found the CES was a non-negligent complication.
Cauda equina syndrome can be a recognised complication of spinal surgery rather than evidence of negligence. Consent claims fail if the court accepts the surgeon gave adequate advice.
Claim failed
[2016] EWHC 269 (QB)·2016·Liability decided at trial
A woman saw her GP and then attended the Royal Free A&E with severe headaches in June and July 2010, was not investigated for a bleed, and suffered a subarachnoid haemorrhage days later while abroad. The judge accepted that earlier small bleeds did not present with typical warning signs and found no breach by the GP, A&E doctor or triage nurse.
Headache claims against A&E succeed only if the presentation should have prompted a scan or lumbar puncture; atypical symptoms without red flags can make it very hard to prove negligence.
Claim failed
[2016] EWHC 251 (QB)·2016·Liability decided at trial
After surgery for a broken femur at St Richard's Hospital, Chichester, the patient was discharged in April 2008 without arrangements to repeat his inflammatory-marker blood tests, and a deep infection was diagnosed later. The court found this discharge and a four-day debridement delay were breaches of duty, but there was no evidence they made his condition materially worse, so the claim was dismissed.
Discharging a patient without arranging follow-up blood tests can be a breach of duty, but compensation depends on showing the delay actually worsened the outcome.
Claim failed
[2015] EWHC 2627 (QB)·2015·Liability decided at trial
A diabetic electrician's eye pressure rose to 40-56 mmHg in the days after retinal surgery and was managed with drugs rather than urgent further surgery. The judge held that continuing medical treatment was a logical clinical judgment supported by a responsible body of eye surgeons and dismissed the claim, including the late-raised consent argument.
Choosing medical management over urgent surgery is not negligent if a responsible body of specialists would have done the same. A Montgomery-style consent argument will fail if the patient would have followed the specialists' recommendation anyway.
Claim failed
[2015] EWHC 2363 (QB)·2015·Liability decided at trial
A woman attending Medway Maritime Hospital A&E in March 2010 with an evolving stroke was not given aspirin promptly after she deteriorated, which the court found was negligent. The claim still failed because the evidence showed her outcome would have been the same even with aspirin.
Proving that A&E staff were negligent is not enough; the claimant must also show the negligence changed the outcome. Where the stroke was untreatable in time, the claim fails on causation.
Claim failed
[2015] EWHC 1311 (QB)·2015·Liability decided at trial
Mr Choudhury called 999 twice in the early hours with dizziness, sweating and head pain; paramedics left him at home both times, he collapsed with a stroke and lay unattended for over eight hours, and at hospital his CT scan was wrongly read as normal and aspirin was delayed. Both defendants admitted these breaches, but the judge found the claimant could not prove that earlier treatment would have prevented the deterioration that left him locked-in.
Admitted failings by an ambulance crew and hospital are not enough on their own; the claimant must prove that proper treatment would probably have avoided the injury. With rare, severe strokes the medical evidence on what treatment would have achieved can defeat the claim.
Claim failed
[2015] EWHC 440 (QB)·2015·Liability decided at trial
A man with a bone disorder was admitted with leg pain, given antibiotics without blood cultures being taken first, and later discharged; weeks later he returned with a spinal infection and became paraplegic. The court found basic failures (no cultures, no monitoring of inflammatory markers) but was not satisfied they caused the paralysis.
Proving a hospital made mistakes is not enough; the claimant must show those mistakes probably caused the injury. Infection cases often turn on whether earlier detection would have changed treatment.
Claim failed
[2015] EWHC 268 (QB)·2015·Liability decided at trial
A man seen at Medway Maritime Hospital A&E in January 2010 with neurological symptoms was discharged without a CT scan or TIA clinic referral, and a brain tumour was diagnosed seven months later. The court held the triage nurse and A&E doctor acted within acceptable practice, so the claim failed.
An A&E doctor who makes a reasonable assessment and relies appropriately on specialist input is not negligent just because the diagnosis later proves wrong.
Claim failed
[2015] EWHC 276 (QB)·2015·Liability decided at trial
A four-year-old with fever, headache and vomiting was seen at an out-of-hours walk-in centre on New Year's Day and sent home with advice to return if he did not improve; the next evening he was admitted with meningitis and was left severely disabled. The judge held the GP's management was within the range of acceptable practice and dismissed the claim.
A feverish child sent home with safety-netting advice is not automatically a negligent consultation; the court asks whether a reasonable GP could have acted the same way. Hindsight about a devastating outcome does not prove breach of duty.
Claim failed
[2013] EWHC 4088 (QB)·2013·Liability and damages decided at trial
A widower and four children claimed after Mrs Shah, who had collapsed with leg weakness days after giving birth, died from an undetected arterial tear. The court found the A&E doctor's failure to check leg pulses was not negligent and would not have changed the outcome, so the claim failed.
Fatal claims need proof both that care fell below a reasonable standard and that better care would probably have saved the patient. The judgment nonetheless shows how dependency damages for a spouse and children are built up from the deceased's earnings and services.
Claim failed
[2013] EWCA Civ 547·2013·Appeal decision
A six-week-old premature baby was seen at an out-of-hours clinic, diagnosed with colic and not referred to hospital; he developed bacterial meningitis and was left severely disabled. The trial judge accepted the GP's contemporaneous note over the mother's recollection of symptoms and found no negligence, and the Court of Appeal upheld that decision.
Even where earlier hospital referral would have prevented the injury, the claim fails if the court accepts the GP's record of what the child looked like at the consultation. Contemporaneous clinical notes can outweigh a parent's later recollection.
Claim failed
[2012] EWHC 2335 (QB)·2012·Liability decided at trial
Mrs Clements alleged that during bowel cancer surgery the surgeons twisted the bowel's mesentery before rejoining it and failed to check, causing obstruction, a second operation and catastrophic complications. The judge found the join was properly formed and the later obstruction was caused by adhesions, so there was no negligence.
Serious complications after surgery do not by themselves prove the operation was done negligently. The court will weigh the operating surgeons' evidence against what was found at the second operation.
Claim failed
[2006] EWCA Civ 1028·2006·Appeal decision
A five-year-old whose overnight glucose pump failed had a hypoglycaemic fit; the GP who came to the house gave suppositories rather than the intravenous glucose he was carrying, and the boy suffered fatal brain damage. The trial judge found the GP negligent but not that IV glucose would have saved him, and the Court of Appeal upheld that decision and refused to admit new evidence.
Proving a doctor was negligent is not enough; the claimant must also prove that correct treatment would have changed the outcome. The court also held that an expert's undisclosed link to the defendant's medical defence organisation did not by itself make his evidence inadmissible.
Claim failed
[2006] EWHC 1238 (QB)·2006·Liability decided at trial
A baby born at 34 weeks developed severe jaundice; it was alleged doctors should have started an exchange transfusion sooner and that the laboratory should have phoned through a dangerously high bilirubin result. The judge found no breach in the doctors' decisions and, although the lab should have telephoned the result, concluded the damage could not have been prevented by then.
Neonatal jaundice claims depend on exactly when bilirubin reached a toxic level and whether earlier action could have prevented it. A proven communication failure still needs to be shown to have changed the outcome.
Claim failed
[2004] EWHC 780 (QB)·2004·Liability decided at trial
Mrs Mellor had years of chest pain with strong cardiac risk factors; a hospital cardiologist wrongly described her exercise test as negative and discharged her, and she died of a cardiac arrest a year later. The judge found the discharge negligent but that the claimant could not prove she would have reached angiography and treatment in time, so the claim failed; the claims against the two GPs also failed.
Proving a doctor was negligent is not enough: the claimant must also show that proper care would have changed the outcome. Where the deceased would only have had routine priority for investigation, a claim can fail on causation even with a clear breach.