For a full analysis of this case please see the Case Review blog post.
Neutral citation:
Judge:
Andrew Lewis QC (Deputy High Court Judge) High Court of Justice, Queens Bench Division
Counsel:
Jamie Carpenter (instructed by Gadsby Wicks Solicitors) for the Claimant
Anna Hughes (instructed by Browne Jacobson LLP ) for the Defendant
Hearing Dates:
14-18 October 2019
Date of Judgement:
31 January 2020
Subject:
Clinical Negligence, Alleged delay in diagnosis an actinomycosis infection which led to surgical drainage of a psoas abscess
Experts in the case:
Dr Spratt, Consultant Radiologist on behalf of the claimant
Dr Tolan, Consultant Radiologist on behalf of the defendant
Dr Ellis, Consultant in Acute Medicine and Infectious Diseases
Dr Croft, Consultant Public Health Physician and expert in Infectious Diseases
Successful party:
Defendant
Legal cases considered:
Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 WLR 583; Bolitho v City and Hackney HA [1998] AC 232; Penney, Palmer and Cannon v East Kent HA [2000] Lloyds Rep Med 41; Muller v Kings College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust [2017] EWHC 218
Guidance Referred to:
Standards for the Reporting and Interpretation of Imaging Investigations, Royal College of Radiologists www.rcr.ac.uk/publication/standards…
Case Summary:
Discussion on the standard of care to be applied in cases of “pure diagnosis”cases. The claimant claimed that there was a delay in diagnosing an actinomycosis infection in 2013 which required her to undergo surgical drainage of a psoas abscess in February 2014 and further procedures that had left her with extensive abdominal scarring and ongoing symptoms. Quantum was agreed by the parties in the sum of £56,000. Liability remained in dispute at trial.
The court concluded that determining what the CT scans showed was essentially a question of fact for the Court to determine on the balance of probabilities, with the assistance of the witness and expert evidence provided. In assessing the expert evidence on negligence on issues of differential diagnoses or recommending further investigation or treatment, the court concluded that the Bolam test, with the Bolitho qualification, applied. On the issue of negligence applying the Bolam test the court was not persuaded that there was any negligence in the interpretation of the scan.
