Neutral Citation:
Judge:
Mr Justice Stewart
Counsel:
Mr R Weir QC for the claimant, Irwin Mitchell, Solicitors
Mr M Barnes for the defendants, Capsticks, Solicitors
Hearing Dates:
19 December 2019
Date of Judgement:
10 February 2020
Subject:
Clinical Negligence
Experts instructed:
N/A
Successful party:
Claimant
Legal cases considered:
SJ Moore (Jeweller) Limited v Squibb Group Limited [2018] EWHC 2731 (QB); Mark v Universal Coatings & Services Limited [2018] EWHC 3206 (QB); Heiser v The Islamic Republic of Iran and Anor [2019] EWHC 2073 (QB)
Case Summary:
This was an application by the defendant for an order that parties have permission to rely upon a single joint expert in the field of genetics. They said it was necessary to allow a definitive view to be taken on issues of causation. The defendant’s expert Dr Rosenbloom was if the view that genetic factors may be causing the claimant’s severe neurological difficulties. The defendants had pled in defence that the claimants presentation was consistent with a chronic partial hypoxic ischaemic insult in utero but not during the course of the labour. The application was made close to the date of trial scheduled for 21 April 2020. The claimant has cerebral palsy and it is argued on his behalf that his profound disabilities were caused by an episode of perinatal hypoxic ischaemia. This was caused by a period of intrauterine prolonged partial hypoxemia commencing in the second stage of labour. The claimant argues that the injuries were caused by the negligent mismanagement of the labour. There was genetic evidence available that the child’s chromosomes were normal and no evidence of an underlying chromosomal abnormality. On that basis there was no grounds for seeking further evidence from a consultant clinical geneticist.
The court weighed all factors and came to the conclusion with reference to Heiser above that the application should be refused. Of importance was the issue of the pending trial and also that many years previously the treating doctors had considered the issue of whether the claimants damage was related to genetics and a consultant geneticist came to the conclusion that the damage was probably not.
