Source: http://docplayer.net/1924303-Causation-in-cases-of-delayed-medical-diagnosis-or-treatment.html
Timestamp: 2017-03-28 12:13:38
Document Index: 153823864

Matched Legal Cases: ['EWCA ', 'UKHL ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'UKHL ', 'UKSC ', 'UKSC ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'Art. 1', 'UKSC ', 'UKSC ', 'UKHL ', 'EWCA ', 'Art. 1', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'UKPC ']

Causation in Cases of Delayed Medical Diagnosis or Treatment - PDF
Download "Causation in Cases of Delayed Medical Diagnosis or Treatment"
Archibald Dickerson
1 Causation in Cases of Delayed Medical Diagnosis or Treatment a paper by Kristina Stern 18 March 2003 at 39 Essex Street Contents Introduction...1 Causation after Bolitho...4 Causation in cases of delay...8 Conclusion...162 Causation in Cases of Delayed Medical Diagnosis or Treatment Introduction Causation in clinical negligence cases is well known to be an area of considerable difficulty. Problems which arise in other contexts are apparently amplified in clinical negligence cases, in particular, where one is considering allegations of omission to provide a particular form of medical treatment, or where one is considering a delay in reaching an appropriate diagnosis and/or in providing proper medical treatment. The assumption, often ill founded in a court of law, that those who have been victims of negligent treatment should receive compensation for their injuries, is in some senses undermined in clinical negligence cases where it is often intuitively felt that those who have been helped (even if not as successfully as one would have hoped) by the medical profession should really not come to court to complain. Moreover, and probably of more significance when considering how a court responds to a claim in negligence, in cases of alleged clinical negligence there are a number of features which complicate issues of causation: 1. even in cases where it is established that a particular defendant was negligent in the treatment which was provided, it is the burden of the court in a clinical negligence case to ascertain what standard of treatment would, or ought, to have been provided if there had been no negligence. This is the problem which formed the subject matter of the appeal to the House of Lords in Bolitho v City & Hackney Health Authority 1 namely, how is the court to approach the question of determining the but for position in cases where the but for position requires an assessment of how an individual would or should have responded in the hypothetical circumstances under consideration. Examples to consider of such problems include: a GP fails to identify that a patient has had protein in her urine and the question is how a hospital department would or should have responded if they had been informed of this feature. The situation is complicated if there is no evidence of the would have position. 1 [1998] AC 232 (HL) 13 a midwife wrongly construes a trace as normal, and it is accepted that, on that particular night, an extremely cautious registrar was on call and would have performed a caesarean section promptly, even though it would not have been negligent to have continued to observe the woman rather than to intervene 2. most clinical negligence cases involve claimants who were already ill (and likely to become more ill) when they first came into contact with their defendant. Many illnesses, even with exemplary medical treatment, will have an uncertain outcome. The task for the court is, therefore, to form a judgment as to how the Claimant s illness would have responded to proper medical treatment and that judgment may be plagued by uncertainties and imponderables. Examples to consider: a patient attends a hospital and it is not appreciated that he is then suffering from a severed nerve the question is how that severed nerve would have responded if promptly treated a patient has advancing renal failure which is not identified, but it is uncertain what effect prompt treatment would have had 3. the human body, and its workings, remains a subject of some mystery even to the medical profession. Much analysis in reports on the question of causation is reliant upon statistical, or anecdotal, analysis because there is in fact no clear understanding of why, in some cases a successful outcome is achieved whereas it is not in others. That leads to a particular difficulty in cases of clinical negligence where, the question for the court is, as in Hotson v East Berkshire Health Authority 2, what would have happened to this particular patient if his condition had been diagnosed when it ought to have been. The inadequacy of statistics to provide a reliable basis for an assessment of how any one individual would have responded in the circumstances was a matter of some concern to the House of Lords in Hotson. Examples to consider include 2 [1987] AC 750 (HL) 24 a claimant who has in fact survived in a way which is not consistent with statistical evidence before the court, or which suggests that for an unknown reason the claimant falls within one statistical category rather than another a man who undergoes two operations rather than one, on account of negligence, and suffers a known complication of the surgery. It is not known precisely why he suffered from that complication, but it is known that the risk of the complication during the second operation, was increased from 2% to 4% because he had already undergone one failed procedure. 4. the relative lack of knowledge about the workings of the human body also causes problems in cases where there are a number of possible causes operating, and only one of them is the result of clinical negligence. Examples to consider include: the baby in Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority 3 who was born blind where there were a number of different possible causes of the blindness. 5. The vagaries of the human body are such that, in some cases, negligence can be identified in that a doctor negligently exposed a patient to risk A, whereas in fact, Risk B materialized. 6. Much will depend on the way in which evidence is presented, and medical experts (particularly those who have not previously been exposed to legal proceedings) are more comfortable using clinical vocabulary, than using the terms and approaches foisted upon them by lawyers. Thus many doctors are reluctant to express their opinions in terms of percentage chances, given that it is not their usual practice to do so. Also, clinical experience may prompt doctors to be more concerned with the future than with ascertaining precisely the causation of a particular sign or symptom. However, the success or failure of a clinical negligence claim (or defence) will generally depend upon the clinician fitting his knowledge into precise legal formulations (balance of probabilities, 3 [1988] AC 1074 (HL) 35 material contribution, acceptable medical practice) in a way which is capable of being justified and explained to the court. In this paper I consider two particular problems arising in cases of causation: 1. cases in which the task for the court is to assess the hypothetical chain of human conduct following an incident of negligence; and 2. cases of delayed diagnosis and/or delayed provision of treatment, in circumstances where the task of the court is to assess the effect of the delay. Causation after Bolitho Bolitho confirmed that where the chain of causation between the alleged negligence and the ultimate injury or damage involved a hypothetical chain of human conduct, the Defendant should not escape liability where he could show that he (or, possibly, a third party) would not in fact have prevented the claimant s injury, but his failure to do so would have involved a lack of reasonable care. This approach to causation can be described as the two bites at the cherry approach, i.e. the claimant can succeed if he can show either that with reasonable care the defendant would on a balance of probabilities have prevented his injury, or that the failure so to act would have been negligent (on the Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee 4 test). Subsequent cases have sought to apply this approach to causation with varying degrees of success. In Wisniewski v Central Manchester Health Authority 5, the Court of Appeal considered a case which was factually analogous to Bolitho, i.e. where the negligence was a failure to attend a woman in labour and the question arose what the doctor would or should have done if he had so attended. The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge, although incorrect in his findings in relation to some of the medical expert evidence, was entitled to find on a balance of probabilities that a 4 [1957] 1 WLR [1999] Lloyd s LR Med 223 (CA) 46 doctor who attended the claimant would probably have ruptured the membranes and would therefore have detected meconium which in turn would have indicated the need for a caesarean section. Accordingly, in theory at least, the case was decided on the balance of probabilities test and not upon the Bolitho two bites of the cherry approach. The case was, however, complicated by the complete lack of any explanation of what would in fact have been done from either the doctor who would most likely have attended or from anyone else at the hospital. In such circumstances, Brooke LJ said (at p.243): It must be remembered that the first limb of the Bolitho test, as it has now been explained by Lord Browne-Wilkinson, does not require a court to make a finding of fact as to what a doctor actually did, but as to what a doctor would have done in the hypothetical situation the court is required to envisage. In those circumstances it may be easier for the plaintiff to set up an affirmative case on that issue which is liable to be strengthened if, for no good reason, the doctor is unwilling to submit him/herself to questioning before the judge as to what he/she would probably have done. A further issue in Wisniewski arose from the fact that, narrowly construed, the risk from which the doctors owed a duty to protect the fetus, i.e. to protect the fetus from oxygen starvation in the womb, was different from that which actually eventuated, i.e. strangulation because the umbilical cord was wrapped around his neck and had a knot in it which gradually tightened. Brooke LJ had little difficulty in rejecting the defendant s argument that this was sufficient to give rise to a problem of unrelated 57 risk such as to preclude the claimant s right to damages. Brooke LJ affirmed the approach of the trial judge (Thomas J) that a) there was a foreseeable risk of damage caused by hypoxia, b) the fetus suffered damage by hypoxia, c) in those circumstances, it was immaterial that the precise causal mechanism, i.e. a knot in the umbilical cord, could not have been foreseen. Also of note is Brooke LJ s suggestion that in any case in which the two bites of the cherry approach causation is to be relied upon, it should specifically be pleaded in order to give the Defendant the opportunity properly to answer the allegation. A second case in which the Bolitho approach to causation received judicial consideration was Hallatt v North West Anglia Health Authority 6. In that case the doctors treating a pregnant woman had decided not to administer a glucose tolerance test when she presented at 34 weeks of pregnancy. She subsequently gave birth to a child who suffered from catastrophic brain injury and damage to the left brachial plexus, caused by complications during an attempted vaginal delivery which in turn were caused by his mother having suffered from gestational diabetes. The critical issue in the appeal was whether or not the doctors had been negligent in having failed to perform a glucose tolerance test. The trial judge had held that it was not negligent not to perform such a test, notwithstanding that she criticised the doctor s reliance upon the results of random blood tests to exclude gestational diabetes as illogical. The plaintiff argued that the 6 [1998] Lloyd s LR Med 197 (CA) 68 judge, having found that the process of reasoning of the doctors was illogical, should have then approached the question as one of causation, i.e. what would the doctors have done if their reasoning had not been so flawed. In effect, the plaintiffs were arguing for a fragmented approach to negligence which focussed upon the stages of reasoning rather than the actual actions of the defendants. Such an approach could, if taken to its logical conclusion, lead to a vast array of allegations of negligence ranging from a failure to be better informed to a failure to consider alternative hypothesis in any given case. Unsurprisingly the Court of Appeal rejected the Plaintiff s argument. They affirmed the importance of focussing on the correct issue, i.e. whether or not the actual decision not to administer a glucose tolerance test was negligent (at p.206). Provided that decision was not negligent, it mattered not that the reasoning process was not beyond reproof. It is the decision, and not the process of reasoning, which must withstanding scrutiny. Buxton LJ, in particular, was critical of the unnecessary complication introduced by arguing the case on Bolitho lines. In his view, the case was clearly distinguishable on two bases: a) there was no causal issue in this case as it was accepted that if a glucose tolerance test had been carried out the result would have been that gestational diabetes would have been identified; and b) the criticism which was made of the doctors was not failure or omission but ignorance, i.e. it was not a failure to do anything to protect the claimant. It was simply a failure to be aware of the limitations of the random blood test. It is not everything which can 79 properly be described as a failure which constitutes a legally significant omission. Causation in cases of delay One of the continuing difficulties in clinical negligence litigation is ascertaining the correct test for causation in cases involving delays in diagnosis. In particular, confusion arises as to whether or not it is appropriate to treat a particular case as one requiring proof on a balance of probabilities, or as one in which an assessment of the chance of a better or worse prognosis will suffice. Hotson (above) establishes that where the evidence does not allow any individual assessment of the likelihood of an individual having achieved a better outcome if there had been no negligence, then damages should not be awarded on the basis that the Claimant had a chance of avoiding personal injury. However, a) Hotson does not apply to cases where some personal injury can be established on the balance of probabilities, and the question is whether or not the consequences of that personal injury are all attributable to the negligence. b) Equally, in cases where there are other evidential factors which enable an application of generalised statistics to the individual case, Hotson does not prevent a finding that causation has been established on a balance of probabilities where it is possible to infer on a robust and pragmatic approach to causation, that on balance an individual Claimant was more likely to fall into one particular statistical category than another; and c) In cases falling within the ambit of the principle established by Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd and others 7 (and query whether this could apply where a patient suffered injury which was caused by either or two negligently created risks, but it is not possible to identify which risk eventuated in the circumstances), a material increase of risk will be sufficient to establish causation. 7 [2002] 3 WLR 89 (HL); [2002] Lloyd's LR Med 361 810 A second difficulty with causation in cases of allegedly negligent delay was identified in Tahir v Haringay 8, namely that the evidence must in fact establish an identifiable injury caused by the negligence, and it is not sufficient merely to lead evidence to the effect that the negligence made matters worse. In Tahir, the Deputy Judge had awarded damages representing a proportion of the total value of the claim, on the basis that the delay had led to a somewhat worse result. The court of Appeal, however, held that in circumstances where there is no finding as to precisely what effect a period of delay had, then the correct result is that the Claimant has not proved his case. Damages cannot be awarded unless the Claimant can prove his injury. Up until recently one of the few cases to consider the correct approach to causation in cases of alleged negligent delay was Judge v Huntingdon HA 9. Somewhat surprisingly in Judge, the Claimant recovered 80% of the damages he would otherwise have recovered on the basis that at the time of the negligent delay in diagnosis of his cancer he only had an 80% prospect of a normal life expectancy. Four recent cases have considered this problem 1. Pearman v North Essex Health Authority 10 was a case involving an admitted delay in diagnosis of an acute disc prolapse. The only issue was causation. Butterfield J. noted in his judgment that in such a case the law was not in dispute, namely, causation is a question of past fact to be decided on a balance of probabilities. The evidence as found by the judge in the case was surprising, namely that whilst overall in patients who suffer from compression of the cauda equina by a central profusion of lumbar disc as evidenced by retention of urine 70% recover some bladder control and 30% do not, time of surgery does not have any impact upon the outcome. Accordingly, he found that the outcome for this Claimant would have been the same even if he had been operated upon 2 days previously as regards bladder control. The claim succeeded, however, as regards the more minor components of damage, namely perineal sensory loss and numbness down the left leg. 8 [1998] Lloyd s Law Reports Med (1995) 6 Med LR [2000] Lloyds Rep Med 174 (Butterfield J.) 911 In that case it does not appear to have been suggested that any loss of a chance analysis could apply. In any event, given the judge s findings of fact, the Claimant did not lose even a chance of recovery. 2. In Smith v NHSLA 11 the court considered a claim arising out of an alleged delay in diagnosing that the Claimant had a congenitally displaced hip. The alleged negligence was in failure to carry out an Ortolani-Barlow examination. It was agreed however, that it was possible for such an examination not to detect congenitally displaced hip even if there were no negligence. Further, the judge found that even if treated before the child is 8-12 weeks old, there was only a 70% chance of the treatment being successful. Accordingly the causation question was, in part, whether or not the appropriate test to apply was that of balance of probabilities, or loss of a chance, and if the appropriate test was the balance of probabilities, how should the court approach this task. The court considered these questions notwithstanding its finding that there was in fact no breach of duty in the circumstances. The approach of the judge was as follows: a) He found that where the chain of causation depended upon how a defendant would have acted if he had not been negligent, i.e. here how an examination would have been carried out if one had been carried out, it should be assumed that the defendant would act in accordance with his obligations to the claimant but it should also be assumed that the Defendant will not have gone beyond his duty. Accordingly, that the doctor would have carried out an examination with proper skill and care but not an especially thorough or able examination. b) Thereafter, it would be appropriate to assess the damage resulting from the failure to examine on a loss of a chance basis. In so finding, the judge relied upon the reasoning of the Court of Appeal in Allied Maples v Simmons & Simmons [2001] Lloyds Rep Med [1995] 1 WLR12 c) In assessing this, the court must assess the likely condition of the Claimant s hip at the time of the examination on the balance of probabilities. d) There was therefore a 25% chance of detection and successful treatment of the congenitally displaced hip had a neonatal examination been carried out. e) There was also a 15% chance of detection and successful treatment of the congenitally displaced hip had a 6 week examination been carried out. 3. In Hardaker v Newcastle Health Authority 13 the question arose as to whether damages were recoverable for an alleged delay in treatment of decompression illness by recompression. According to the judge, the evidence showed that there was a real possibility that the delay affected the claimant s chances of a full recovery and that his permanent symptoms would have been less serious if there had been no such delay. However, none of the experts could quantify the chances that a speedier entry into the chamber would have led to a better result and none could identify in what respects his permanent symptoms would have been different if compression had begun earlier. Accordingly he held that the case was indistinguishable from that of Hotson and Tahir v Haringay and Pearman (above), and that authority precluded him from awarding damages for the loss of a chance of a full or better recovery. He also specifically disapproved of the decision in Smith v NHSLA (above) as not representing the law. Rather, the claimant must establish what injury has been caused, or what aggravation to his injuries has been caused on the balance of probabilities (see paragraphs 69-71). 4. More recently, in Gregg v Scott 14, the Court of Appeal considered the problem of a 9 month delay in diagnosis of a lymphoma. In that case: a) The statistical evidence in the Claimant s initial expert s report had to be altered to take account of further published research, and the fact 13 (15th June 2001, Stanley Burnton J) 14 [2002] EWCA Civ13 that the Claimant had in fact survived which suggested that he had a better prognosis than the norm; and b) the judge found that: of 100 patient such as the Claimant, at the time of the alleged negligence, 55 would achieve remission, 42 would ultimately survive of whom 35 of which would not have had to undergo high dose chemotherapy with stem cell treatment, i.e. that it was more likely than not that prompt treatment would have led initially to remission, but it was not more likely than not that prompt treatment would have produced a better long term outcome. c) At the time of the trial the Claimant had a 25% prospect of disease free survival for 5 years. Accordingly, there had been a 17% diminution in the chance of long term survival. d) The trial judge found that the question of how the Claimant s condition would have developed in the period up until the trial was one of past fact and was not properly described as hypothetical so as to put it in the category of quantification. He said that the question of how the tumour would have developed was identical to that of how the doctor who ought to have attended would have treated the patient in Bolitho. e) The trial judge found that the Claimant had failed to prove that the outcome for him, viewed as at the date of the trial, would have been any different. Latham LJ held that the present case could be distinguished from Hotson because of the all or nothing nature of the avascular necrosis in Hotson, i.e. because in Hotson, it was accepted that either the avascular necrosis would or would not have happened, and the evidence in Hotson was that, given the finding as to the state of the Claimant s hip at the time of his admission to hospital, the avascular necrosis was inevitable. The present case, however, was one in which there was a question of degree (as the tumour grew the chances of successful treatment diminished), and that in those circumstances an all or nothing approach was not just. This analysis suggests that where, as in this case, at the time of the negligence it would not have been possible to predict 1214 how the Claimant s condition would develop, the all or nothing approach is not appropriate. Latham LJ also concluded that Hotson was not authority for the proposition that damages could not be awarded for loss of a chance in clinical negligence claims. He held that the case should be determined by an analysis of the scope of the duty of care. That, he found, was to exercise such care as would reduce the risk of an undiagnosed cancer spreading and becoming less amenable to treatment. A further factor of relevance to Latham LJ was that the spread of the cancer, and the reduced chances of recovery, were in this case, inextricably interlinked (unlike the pain and the lost chance of recovery of the boy in Hotson). Thus, he held that the damages for the lost chance of recovery were properly analysed as a consequence of the personal injury, which the Claimant had proved on a balance of probabilities. His conclusion was expressed as: where an injury that has been sustained carried with it a significant reduction in the chance of a benefit which would otherwise have been available, the judge is required to evaluate the value of that lost chance. I say significant because it seems to me that otherwise it will be too marginal or speculative to amount to an injury capable of being recognised as damage. Mance LJ viewed the question as being whether or not the relaxation of the rules of causation in cases where scientific proof of but for causation is not possible (as in Fairchild, Bonnington 15, and McGhee 16 as explained in Fairchild) should be extended to cover the present circumstances. Mance LJ held that the present case was different from that of Fairchild, Bonnington, and McGhee, in part, because in those cases the Defendant was the source of the risk, whereas in the present case the Defendant s breach was in failing to ameliorate the consequences of an existing risk. Accordingly, he held that there was no room for a material contribution analysis. He recognised the difficulties in the case as stemming from a simple problem: No-one suggests that the statistical diminution in life expectancy relied upon by the appellant can sensibly be treated as minimal. Anyone would regard a 15 Bonnington v Castings & Wardlow (1956) AC McGhee v National Coal Board (1973) 1 WLR 1 1315 42% chance of survival as, at any rate, a fair, though not of course a good, chance of survival, whereas a 25% prospect, although the drop is only 17%, falls into the category of a poor chance of survival. On the other hand, quite apart from the respondent s negligence, the appellant had cancer, which at least as a matter of statistical probability meant that he was anyway going to suffer a curtailed life, so that there cannot be a simple attribution, to the respondent s negligence, of all the devastating effects on him of his cancer. Mance LJ analysed the case as not falling precisely within any other previously defined category. He distinguished the case from Fairchild on the basis that, in the context of clinical negligence, the policy considerations which militated in favour of recovery in the employer s liability context were missing. Thus, whilst in the employer s liability context there were the problems of a range of defendants introducing a risk, and the difficulty of a wrong going unremedied, in a clinical negligence case the policy considerations pointed the other way. According to Mance LJ, although the evidence did not actually speak to this, it was possible that the Claimant s prognosis depended at least in part upon factors which were present (although not identifiable) at the time of the negligence. Thus, he said, factors relating to the precise characteristics of the tumour, and precise characteristics of the Claimant, may have determined whether or not the Claimant fell within the 58% or the 42% statistical likelihood of remission. In some senses, therefore, he held that this case was like Hotson where the statistical analysis itself depended upon a past fact, namely the number of blood vessels left intact following the boy s fall. However, he held that the analogy was not complete as it could not be known whether or not past facts themselves determined the prognosis. A second reason for distinguishing this case from Hotson was that in this case the question of prognosis was only presented in evidence as a matter of statistics. The question was, therefore, whether or not the approach in Hotson should be taken where the evidence does not allow any finding of past fact to be made regarding the position of the Claimant at the point of the negligent event, and where it is not clear that the Claimant s statistical prospects depend upon matters of past fact. Mance LJ suggested the following response: 1416 a) English law should not allow a claim for loss of a chance simpliciter, i.e. where there is no personal injury and the claim is purely for a loss of a chance. The example of this which he gave was someone exposed to a risk who did not yet know whether or not it would eventuate. b) A claimant should not be able to succeed merely by showing that there is a chance that negligence may have caused his injury. For example, the Claimants in Wilsher and Bolitho could not succeed merely by showing that there was a possibility, as opposed to a probability, that the negligence caused their injury. c) That ultimately it was a question of policy whether or not to treat a case such as the present as one in which the Claimant had to prove the probability that his loss in life expectancy was caused by the negligence, or as one in which recovery should be allowed for the loss of prospect of recovery. d) His conclusion was that, as a matter of policy, claims based upon statistical possibilities rather than upon probability itself, should not be allowed. He felt that it would open the gates to a wide variety of claims, and introduce difficult distinctions, were such claims to be allowed. e) He rejected the Claimant s claim for diminution of life expectancy as a consequence of the enlargement of the tumour not in principle, but because as a matter of probability at the time of the negligence the Claimant would have suffered this loss in any event. Thus, for this substantive head of loss the Claimant had not proved his loss as a matter of probability. He distinguished this case from a case of acceleration of, for example, back pain as in such a case the loss, in terms of acceleration, would have to be proved on a balance of probability. Simon Brown LJ agreed with Mance LJ that as a matter of policy the rules of causation should not be relaxed in health claims. Ultimately, however, he based his judgment upon the similarity between this claim and that in Hotson. 1517 Leave has been granted to appeal to the House of Lords in Gregg v Scott. It seems likely that the policy arguments which found favour in the Court of Appeal will equally sway the House of Lords. The factors identified in the introduction to this paper are powerful arguments in favour of a restrictive approach to causation in clinical negligence cases, particularly where the character of a background risk is left unchanged by the clinical negligence, and the difference is simply one of degree. Conclusion Whilst for the present it is safe to say that in the clinical negligence context, there will be no relaxing of the rules of causation save to the extent that Bolitho permitted the two bites of the cherry approach, some of the analysis adopted by the Court of Appeal in Gregg v Scott has left the law in an unsatisfactory state, in particular, in that: a) The distinction adopted by Mance LJ between a negligently caused cancer, for which damages may be reduced to take account of a preexisting risk of developing cancer, and a negligent failure to diagnose a cancer with the result that there was an increased risk of curtailed life expectancy, is a distinction for which it is difficult to find a principled justification. Surely if there is to be permitted a comparison between a negligently caused risk and a non-negligently caused risk then it should be a comparison which is allowed in any case in which negligence has caused a significant increase in risk. Why should there be a difference between a claimant who is negligently exposed to a carcinogenic leading to a 42% risk of dying within 5 years from cancer, but who already had a 17% risk of developing cancer and the Claimant in Gregg v Scott. b) The distinction adopted by Latham LJ between a case where there is scientific knowledge as to causation as a matter of past fact, and a case such as Gregg v Scott where there was no such knowledge, it again difficult to justify as a matter of principle. It leads to an anomalous situation where the less known about the scientific aetiology of the Claimant s condition, the better. 1618 c) A Claimant who can show a diminution of life expectancy on the statistics, rather than a statistical diminution of 5 year life expectancy, is more likely to succeed in a claim for damages. Thus, it is preferable for a Claimant s medical evidence to be framed in terms of diminution of life expectancy, and in the more conventional medical phraseology of probability of 5 year survival. As these cases show, the Courts are still clearly unwilling to expand the categories of recovery in clinical negligence cases by adopting more flexible approaches to causation. What is a favourable development, however, is the willingness of the judges in English courts to express their conclusions as being based upon policy, rather than upon legal analysis. Such an openness allows the true premise of the decisions to be debated, and resists the temptation to hide policy behind a mask of legal principle, thereby clouding the debate. After Gregg v Scott the true question to be addressed is whether or not, as a matter of judgment and ethics, our courts should allow those who come into the health service with an illness, should be treated in the same way as those who are injured by extraneous causes, such as cars, noxious fumes, or the vagaries of the workplace. 39 Essex Street Kristina Stern London 18 March19 Multiple Tortfeasors in Clinical Negligence: The Influence of Fairchild a paper by Dr. Vikram Sachdeva 18 March 2003 at 39 Essex Street Contents Introduction...2 Material Contribution to the Damage....4 Material Contribution to the Risk20 Multiple Tortfeasors in Clinical Negligence: The Influence of Fairchild Introduction 1. Care is needed with the concept of causation in Clinical Negligence law. The legal concept of causation is distinct from the scientific meaning: for instance in the case of an adverse drug reaction to penicillin in a patient who is allergic and has been documented as such. The scientist would say that the reaction was caused by the combination of a pre-existing susceptibility, which has numerous possible causes, both genetic and environmental, coupled with the administration of penicillin by the medical professional. However a philosopher might be more concerned with the conduct of the medical professional, seeking to enquire why he acted as he did, seeking to evaluate his conduct. In law, the function of the concept of causation is to attribute legal responsibility for damage, which involves asking whether (1) factual and (2) legal causation has been satisfied. 2. The but for test of causation in Clinical Negligence has been regarded by some as a prerequisite of liability. The function of the test, in asking would the damage of which the Claimant complains have occurred but for the wrong of the Defendant, is to eliminate irrelevant causes. 17 If the damage would have occurred in any event the Defendant s conduct is not a but for cause See Clerk & Lindsell on Torts (17 th Ed, 2000) para In Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital Management Committee [1969] 1 QB 428 the Plaintiff s husband was sent home from a hospital casualty department after complaining of acute stomach pains and sickness. He died later the same day of what turned out to be arsenic poisoning. The hospital admitted negligence in failing to treat the man promptly. However his widow s claim under the Fatal Accidents Act failed because of evidence that, had he been treated promptly, he would still have died from the poison. Similarly in Robinson v Post Office [1974] 1 WLR 1176 a doctor s omission to test for an allergic reaction to an anti-tetanus vaccination was not causally related to the patient s subsequent reaction, because the test would not have revealed the allergy in time. View more
Bar Vocational Course Legal Research Task Below is an example of a 2,500 word legal research piece which is typical of the task required as part of the Bar Vocational Course. This particular piece is on More information Causation for nursing
Causation for nursing Abstract This article considers the application of the tests of factual and legal causation to cases of medical negligence. It is argued that in light of the recent development of More information CAUSATION, CONTRIBUTION AND CHANCE
CAUSATION, CONTRIBUTION AND CHANCE Selena Plowden & John Snell, Guildhall Chambers 9 th June 2011 Causation the basic but for test Breach of duty is irrelevant if no harm caused. Burden of proof is on More information This is the author s version of a work that was submitted/accepted for publication in the following source:
This is the author s version of a work that was submitted/accepted for publication in the following source: Stickley, Amanda P. (2012) Long term exposure to asbestos satisfies test for causation. Queensland More information Clinical Negligence Lecture by Terence Coghlan QC given on 20.7.10. Several, or Cumulative causes of injury: is the Def liable for all the injury
Clinical Negligence Lecture by Terence Coghlan QC given on 20.7.10 1 Several, or Cumulative causes of injury: is the Def liable for all the injury suffered, or only that caused by his negligence? (A canter More information Missed medical diagnoses and the case for permitting proportionate recovery under English Law
17 CURRENT CONTROVERSIES Missed medical diagnoses and the case for permitting proportionate recovery under English Law M Stauch Journal of Academic Legal Studies 2005;1:17 21 Correspondence to: Marc Stauch, More information LEXIS NEXIS WEBINAR 17.9.13 ASBESTOS UPDATE THE SHIFTING SANDS OF CAUSATION
LEXIS NEXIS WEBINAR 17.9.13 ASBESTOS UPDATE THE SHIFTING SANDS OF CAUSATION INTRODUCTION: 1. The issue of causation has long been and continues to be a difficult one for industrial disease claims, and, More information PROOF OF CAUSATION BY MATERIAL CONTRIBUTION BUT FOR BY ANOTHER NAME? the meaning and scope of 'a material contribution' to injury.
PROOF OF CAUSATION BY MATERIAL CONTRIBUTION BUT FOR BY ANOTHER NAME? 1. In tort the onus is on a claimant to show that the defendant's wrongdoing caused him actual damage. In a claim for personal injury More information SMOOTHING THE ROUGH JUSTICE OF THE FAIRCHILD PRINCIPLE. (Published in (2006) 122(4) Law Quarterly Review 547-553)
SMOOTHING THE ROUGH JUSTICE OF THE FAIRCHILD PRINCIPLE (Published in (2006) 122(4) Law Quarterly Review 547-553) THE long-awaited decision of the House of Lords in Barker v Corus (UK) Plc. [2006] UKHL More information Williams v. University of Birmingham [2011] EWCA Civ 1242 Court of Appeal, 28 October 2011
Williams v. University of Birmingham [2011] EWCA Civ 1242 Court of Appeal, 28 October 2011 Summary In a mesothelioma claim, the defendant was not in breach of duty in relation to exposure to asbestos for More information CAUSATION AND LOSSES. Professor Lewis N Klar, Q.C.
FACT PATTERN ONE The following facts are based on the case of Bedard v. Martyn [2009] A.J. No. 308 The infant plaintiff developed a large blood clot in his brain at some time either before or during the More information Increasing the risk of injury and proof of causation on the balance of probabilities. Sandy Steel
Increasing the risk of injury and proof of causation on the balance of probabilities Sandy Steel A risk is a probability of a negative outcome. 1 The concept of risk plays several distinct roles in relation More information NEGLIGENT SETTLEMENT ADVICE. Daniel Crowley and Leona Powell consider the Court s approach to negligent settlement advice.
NEGLIGENT SETTLEMENT ADVICE Daniel Crowley and Leona Powell consider the Court s approach to negligent settlement advice. The standard of care owed by a solicitor to his client has been established for More information Barker. Corus (UK) Ltd. Murray. British Shipbuilders (Hydrodynamics) Ltd. Patterson. Smiths Dock Ltd and others. UK House of Lords. 3 May 2006.
Barker v Corus (UK) Ltd Murray v British Shipbuilders (Hydrodynamics) Ltd Patterson v Smiths Dock Ltd and others UK House of Lords 3 May 2006. [2006] All ER (D) 23 (May); [2006] NLJR 796; [2006] UKHL 20; More information THE HORNET S NEST REVISITED - THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT IN SIENKIEWICZ
THE HORNET S NEST REVISITED - THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT IN SIENKIEWICZ v GREIF; WILLMORE v KNOWSLEY MBC Fairchild kicked open the hornets nest. The House of Lords was confronted with several employers, More information Disease/Illness GUIDE TO PLEURAL PLAQUES. What are Pleural Plaques? www.simpsonmillar.co.uk Telephone 0844 858 3200
GUIDE TO PLEURAL PLAQUES What are Pleural Plaques? The most common injury caused by asbestos exposure is pleural plaques, which appear as white or yellow thickening on the pleura. They often appear frequently More information The End of the Road? The current state of play in asbestos claims and consideration of the future
The End of the Road? The current state of play in asbestos claims and consideration of the future a presentation by COLIN MCCAUL QC at 39 Essex Street on 10 th June 2004 A. Types of asbestos disease and More information Sienkiewicz v Greif (UK) Ltd: a cautionary tale for causation
Sienkiewicz v Greif (UK) Ltd: a cautionary tale for causation In Sienkiewicz v Greif 1 (joined with Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council v Willmore 2 ) the Supreme Court addressed the latest issue to More information PERIODICAL PAYMENTS AND TERMINAL DISEASE. Introduction
PERIODICAL PAYMENTS AND TERMINAL DISEASE Introduction 1. The litigation of cases involving those with terminal or potentially terminal disease presents numerous forensic difficulties to the litigator. More information Supreme Court delivers judgment in the Employers' Liability Trigger Litigation
Supreme Court delivers judgment in the Employers' Liability Trigger Litigation On 28th March 2012, the Supreme Court handed down judgment in BAI (Run Off) Limited v Durham [2012] UKSC 14, the test-cases More information LIMITATION UPDATE. 1. Recently, the Courts have been looking at three areas of limitation law and
LIMITATION UPDATE 1. Recently, the Courts have been looking at three areas of limitation law and practice. One is when it is permissible to introduce a new claim in pending proceedings after the limitation More information PROOF OF CAUSATION A new approach in cancer cases
PROOF OF CAUSATION A new approach in cancer cases Andrew Axon Barrister Parklane Plowden Chambers Life is unpredictable 1 Gregg v Scott Non-Hogkin s lymphoma 9 months delay Injury = premature death due More information El Trigger Litigation. Note on Judgment from the Supreme Court. 28 March 2012. (or All s Well That Ends Well )
El Trigger Litigation Note on Judgment from the Supreme Court 28 March 2012 (or All s Well That Ends Well ) Background: 1. The Supreme Court heard the case between 5 th and 15 th December 2011. The Court More information CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE ARTICLE: THE DETECTION & TREATMENT OF BREAST CANCER & CLAIMS FOR LOSS OF LIFE EXPECTANCY IN CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE CASES
CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE ARTICLE: THE DETECTION & TREATMENT OF BREAST CANCER & CLAIMS FOR LOSS OF LIFE EXPECTANCY IN CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE CASES Reports relating to the detection and treatment of breast cancer More information JUDGMENT. Sienkiewicz (Administratrix of the Estate of Enid Costello Deceased) (Respondent) v Greif (UK) Limited (Appellant)
Hilary Term [2011] UKSC 10 On appeal from: [2009] EWCA Civ 1159; [2009] EWCA Civ 1211 JUDGMENT Sienkiewicz (Administratrix of the Estate of Enid Costello Deceased) (Respondent) v Greif (UK) Limited (Appellant) More information RESPONSE BY FORUM OF INSURANCE LAWYERS (FOIL) (SCOTLAND) THE SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT CONSULTATION PAPER-
RESPONSE BY FORUM OF INSURANCE LAWYERS (FOIL) (SCOTLAND) TO THE SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT CONSULTATION PAPER- Partial Regulatory Impact Assessment on a Proposed Bill to Reverse House of Lords Judgement in Johnston More information Suing for the Loss of the Right to Sue: Why Wright is Wrong PAPER NO. 4/2012 MARCH 2012. Nicholas McBride & Sandy Steel
PAPER NO. 4/2012 MARCH 2012 Suing for the Loss of the Right to Sue: Why Wright is Wrong Nicholas McBride & Sandy Steel Further information about the University of Cambridge Faculty of Law Legal Studies More information Nelton Forsythe instructed by Forsythe and Forsythe for the claimant
[2012] JMSC Civ 85 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE OF JAMAICA CIVIL DIVISION CLAIM NO. 2007 HCV 05051 BETWEEN PAULA WHYTE CLAIMANT AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FIRST DEFENDANT AND SOUTH EAST REGIONAL HEALTH More information But For Causation in Defective Drug and Toxic Exposure Cases: California s Form Jury Instruction CACI 430
But For Causation in Defective Drug and Toxic Exposure Cases: California s Form Jury Instruction CACI 430 By Matt Powers and Charles Lifland Since the California Supreme Court s 1991 decision in Mitchell More information KEEPING ABREAST OF IMPLANTS RUWENA KHAN
KEEPING ABREAST OF IMPLANTS RUWENA KHAN Introduction The origins of plastic surgery, a medical speciality concerned with the correction or restoration of form and function, can be traced back to 800BC More information EMPLOYERS LIABILITY AND THE ENTERPRISE AND REGULATORY REFORM ACT 2013
EMPLOYERS LIABILITY AND THE ENTERPRISE AND REGULATORY REFORM ACT 2013 By Justin Valentine Section 69 of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 amends section 47 of the Health and Safety at Work More information Today I will discuss medical negligence following a number of recent high profile cases and inquests.
Tipp FM Legal Slot 29 th May 2012 Medical Negligence John M. Lynch, Principal Today I will discuss medical negligence following a number of recent high profile cases and inquests. Firstly, what is Medical More information (1) A person to whom damage to another is legally attributed is liable to compensate that damage.
Principles of European Tort Law TITLE I. Basic Norm Chapter 1. Basic Norm Art. 1:101. Basic norm (1) A person to whom damage to another is legally attributed is liable to compensate that damage. (2) Damage More information Reform to Lost Years Damages in Mesothelioma Claims
Reform to Lost Years Damages in Mesothelioma Claims September 2008 Neil Fisher and Kevin Johnson John Pickering and Partners LLP Email: kj@johnpickering.co.uk 19 Castle Street Liverpool L2 4SX Tel: 0151 More information CASE COMMENT. by Craig Gillespie and Bottom Line Research
CASE COMMENT by Craig Gillespie and Bottom Line Research On June 29, 2012 the Supreme Court of Canada released Clements v. Clements, [2012] 7 W.W.R. 217, 2012 SCC 32, its latest in a series of judgements More information BACK TO BASICS: TAX AND PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE
GITC REVIEW VOL.XIII NO.1 ~ DECEMBER 2014 BACK TO BASICS: TAX AND PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE by Michael Thomas It is a sobering thought that those of us who give tax advice are potentially one slip away from More information Medicolegal Problems Facing Breast Radiologists: How to Avoid Them
Medicolegal Problems Facing Breast Radiologists: How to Avoid Them Dr Philip Zack Medicolegal Adviser Brighton - British Society of Breast Radiology Conference 10/11/2014 Total number of reported CNST More information Employers Liability Trigger Litigation
Employers Liability Trigger Litigation Following my preliminary note of the 11 th October 2010 I have now had an opportunity to study the decision in detail. This litigation was to decide what event would More information OpenAIR@RGU. The Open Access Institutional Repository at Robert Gordon University
OpenAIR@RGU The Open Access Institutional Repository at Robert Gordon University http://openair.rgu.ac.uk This is an author produced version of a paper published in Journal of Comparative Law (ISSN 1477-0814) More information Legal causation and apportionment
Legal causation and apportionment Simon Morrow Partner, BLM Manchester Birmingham Cardiff Leeds Liverpool London Manchester Southampton Stockton-on-Tees Legal causation in disease cases Introduction As More information Supreme Court confirms that pleural plaques are actionable in Scotland
Insurance and reinsurance litigation e-bulletin 27 October 2011 Supreme Court confirms that pleural plaques are actionable in Scotland In a decision which has important ramifications for the UK insurance More information PERSONAL INJURY CLAIMS
PERSONAL INJURY CLAIMS Frequently Asked Questions 1. Can I make a claim? If you have been injured because of the fault of someone else, you can claim financial compensation through the courts. The dependants More information Supreme Court Judgment in Coventry and Ors v Lawrence and another [2015] UKSC 50
Alerter 24 th July 2015 Supreme Court Judgment in Coventry and Ors v Lawrence and another [2015] UKSC 50 The Supreme Court has handed down its Judgment in Coventry v Lawrence in which it considered the More information MWR Solicitors A legal guide HEALTH & SAFETY: Industrial diseases. Lawyers for life
MWR Solicitors A legal guide HEALTH & SAFETY: Industrial diseases Lawyers for life CONTENTS Time Limits 4 Foreseeable Risk of Injury 4 Asbestos-Related Disease 4 - A Brief Insight 4 - Overview 5 - Pleural More information TORT LAW SUMMARY LAWSKOOL UK
TORT LAW SUMMARY LAWSKOOL UK TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 5 DEFENCES 6 Consent (Or Volenti Non Fit Injuria) 6 Illegtality (or Ex Trupi Causa) 7 Contributory Negiligence 8 NEGLIGENCE 11 Duty of Care 11 More information CAUSATION IN PERSONAL INJURY CLAIMS
CAUSATION IN PERSONAL INJURY CLAIMS Introduction 1. The usual blueprint for any action for personal injury is a breach of duty causing actionable damage. Sometimes, the focus of the enquiry is in respect More information the compensation myth
the compensation myth The Compensation Myth It is common to hear stories of the Compensation Culture or claims that Britain is becoming Risk Averse as a result of people claiming compensation. The truth More information Information. Considering a clinical negligence claim. What gives rise to a clinical negligence claim? What about the issue of causation?
Information You are asking advice from Thomson Snell & Passmore about a possible clinical negligence claim. Such claims are complex and it would greatly assist your understanding of the issues if you read More information ACCOUNTABILITY IN CLINICAL PRACTICE: LITIGATION AND THE NON-MEDICAL PRESCRIBER
ACCOUNTABILITY IN CLINICAL PRACTICE: LITIGATION AND THE NON-MEDICAL PRESCRIBER presented to Allied Healthcare Professionals On 1 April 2008 By Timothy Willitts Cobden House Chambers 19 Quay Street Manchester More information OFFER BY WPP GROUP PLC ("WPP")
THE TAKEOVER PANEL 2001/15 OFFER BY WPP GROUP PLC ("WPP") FOR TEMPUS GROUP PLC ("TEMPUS") 1. The Takeover Panel met on 31 October to hear an appeal by WPP against the Panel Executive's refusal to allow More information The method by which the courts
Loss of chance Suzanne Farg and Verity Danziger discuss the hurdles to overcome to establish a claim Suzanne Farg (pictured) is a solicitor and Verity Danziger is a partner in clinical negligence and personal More information Murrell v Healy [2001] ADR.L.R. 04/05
CA on appeal from Brighton CC (HHJ Coates) before Waller LJ; Dyson LJ. 5 th April 2001. JUDGMENT : LORD JUSTICE WALLER : 1. This is an appeal from Her Honour Judge Coates who assessed damages in the following More information OPINIONS OF THE LORDS OF APPEAL
HOUSE OF LORDS SESSION 2004 05 [2005] UKHL 2 on appeal from: [2002] EWCA Civ 1471 OPINIONS OF THE LORDS OF APPEAL FOR JUDGMENT IN THE CAUSE Gregg (FC) (Appellant) v. Scott (Respondent) ON THURSDAY 27 JANUARY More information Principles of European Tort Law
Principles of European Tort Law TITLE I. Basic Norm Chapter 1. Basic Norm Art. 1:101. Basic norm (1) A person to whom damage to another is legally attributed is liable to compensate that damage. (2) Damage More information Guide to Claims against General Practitioners (GPs)
Patients often build up a relationship of trust with their GP over a number of years. It can be devastating when a GP fails in his or her duty to a patient. Our medical negligence solicitors understand More information Title 8 Laws of Bermuda Item 67 BERMUDA 1951 : 39 LAW REFORM (LIABILITY IN TORT) ACT 1951 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS
BERMUDA 1951 : 39 LAW REFORM (LIABILITY IN TORT) ACT 1951 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS 1 Interpretation 2 Savings 3 Apportionment of liability where contributory negligence 4 Defence of common employment abolished More information FOR THE GREATER GOOD? SUMMARY DISMISSAL, PSYCHIATRIC INJURY AND REMOTENESS
FOR THE GREATER GOOD? SUMMARY DISMISSAL, PSYCHIATRIC INJURY AND REMOTENESS While stress at work claims where a Claimant has been exposed to a lengthy and continuous period of stress recently benefited More information Munkman on Damages for Personal Injuries and Death
Munkman on Damages for Personal Injuries and Death Twelfth edition Gordon BA (Warwick) of Lincoln's Inn, Barrister Foreword to the twelfth edition by Julian Goose QC Preface to the twelfth edition Preface More information LEGAL SUMMARY. The plaintiff instituted action on behalf of her minor child (A) against the defendant for
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy In the matter between: LUNGILE NTSELE Plaintiff More information Asbestos Disease Claims
Asbestos Disease Claims A client s guide Spring 2007 Contents 2. Essential elements for a successful claim 3. What we will do 3. Funding the case 3. Preliminary investigations 4. What happens next? 4. More information Duty of Care. Kung Fu Instructor in Training Program. Shaolin Guardian Network
Duty of Care Kung Fu Instructor in Training Program Shaolin Guardian Network Negligence This civil wrong is most importance to all professional groups, as far as being a source of potential legal action. More information At first sight Wellesley Partners LLP v Withers LLP [2015] EWCA Civ 1146 is just
TWO IMPORTANT CASES WELLESLEY PARTNERS LLP the test of remoteness. At first sight Wellesley Partners LLP v Withers LLP [2015] EWCA Civ 1146 is just another slightly dreary solicitors negligence case where More information JAMES MILLER STRESS - EMPLOYERS BEHAVING BADLY? SEPTEMBER 2002
JAMES MILLER STRESS - EMPLOYERS BEHAVING BADLY? SEPTEMBER 2002 Reynolds Porter Chamberlain Chichester House 278-282 High Holborn London WC1V 7HA Direct Tel: 020 7306 3517 Fax: 020 7242 1431 Direct Email: More information OPINION Richard B. Klein DATE: June 14, 2001. Plaintiff, Patricia Daniels, filed this lawsuit on behalf of
PATRICIA DANIELS, p/n/g of : PHILADELPHIA COUNTY RODERICK STERLING, a minor : COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : TRIAL DIVISION v. : June Term, 1996 : HOSPITAL OF PHILADELPHIA : NO. 2450 COLLEGE OF OSTEOPATHIC : More information SCOTTISH LAW COMMISSION DAMAGES FOR PSYCHIATRIC INJURY. DISCUSSION PAPER No. 120
SCOTTISH LAW COMMISSION DAMAGES FOR PSYCHIATRIC INJURY DISCUSSION PAPER No. 120 A RESPONSE BY THE ASSOCIATION OF PERSONAL INJURY LAWYERS NOVEMBER 2002 The executive committee would like to acknowledge More information Legal Action / Claiming Compensation in Scotland
: A guide to making a claim 2 Our guide to making a clinical negligence claim At Kingsley Napley, our guiding principle is to provide you with a dedicated client service and we aim to make the claims process More information What is my claim worth?
What is my claim worth? This is probably the most common and important question asked by a Claimant pursuing a personal injury claim. At the end of the day, it is the recovery of compensation for the injury More information BLM Emerging Risks Team - Report on Definition, Causation and Epidemiology
BLM Emerging Risks Team - Report on Definition, Causation and Epidemiology 23 September 2014 Nick Pargeter Partner, BLM London T 020 7865 3361 E Nicholas.pargeter@blmlaw.com Malcolm Keen Solicitor, BLM More information Assessing Damages Under Section 151Z: An Interaction of Schemes
Assessing Damages Under Section 151Z: An Interaction of Schemes Andrew Parker Barrister Henry Parkes Chambers Ty Hickey Barrister State Chambers 1 Calculating damages under s 151Z(2) of the Workers Compensation More information Claiming Compensation for Birth Injuries.
Clinical Negligence: Claiming Compensation for Birth Injuries. T H O M P S O N S F A C T S H E E T About birth injury Compensation Types of birth injury cases where compensation may be possible How to More information 4. In Dymocks Franchise Systems (NSW) Pty Ltd v Todd [2004] UKPC 39 Lord Brown clarified:
Third Party Costs Orders against Solicitors 1. This article discusses the rise in applications against solicitors for third party costs orders, where solicitors have acted on conditional fee agreements More information Tree roots: causation in natural nuisance cases
Tree roots: causation in natural nuisance cases What is the correct approach to causation in cases concerning natural nuisances where a landowner does nothing at all to abate such a nuisance on his land? More information POLICY TRIGGERS, APPORTIONMENT AND ALLOCATION. Leigh-Ann Mulcahy QC. Introduction
POLICY TRIGGERS, APPORTIONMENT AND ALLOCATION Leigh-Ann Mulcahy QC Introduction The EL Policy Trigger Litigation (Durham v BAI (2012)) EL Apportionment Uninsured periods and solvent employers Allocation More information Negligence II: causation and remoteness of damage
2 Negligence II: causation and remoteness of damage 2.1 OBJECTIVES By the end of this chapter you should be able to: 1 Explain the theoretical distinction between causation in fact and causation in law More information MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE ANNUAL CASE REVIEW MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE 2009/2010. Ian Butcher, barrister 1
MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE ANNUAL CASE REVIEW MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE 2009/2010 Ian Butcher, barrister 1 GETT V TABET (2010) 265 ALR 227 No damages for loss of chance for personal injury following negligence Need for More information Medical Negligence. A client s guide. head and shoulders above the rest in terms of skills, experience and quality. The Legal 500
www.personalinjury.ffw.com Freephone 0800 358 3848 www.personalinjury.ffw.com Freephone 0800 358 3848 Medical Negligence A client s guide head and shoulders above the rest in terms of skills, experience More information Your Guide to Pursuing a Personal Injury Claim
Your Guide to Pursuing a Personal Injury Claim 2 Contents Introduction... 3 Important things that you must do... 3 In The Beginning... 4 Mitigating your loss... 4 Time limits... 4 Who can claim?... 4 Whose More information LOUISIANA PERSONAL INJURY ACCIDENT BASICS
LOUISIANA PERSONAL INJURY ACCIDENT BASICS The Concept of Negligence If you have been injured, only an experienced Louisiana personal injury accident attorney can evaluate the unique facts and circumstances More information Clinical Trial Compensation Guidelines
Clinical Trial Compensation Guidelines Preface These guidelines contain two distinct sections: Phase I Clinical Trials Compensation Guidelines Phases II, III and IV Clinical Trials Compensation Guidelines More information WikiLeaks Document Release
WikiLeaks Document Release February 2, 2009 Congressional Research Service Report RS20519 ASBESTOS COMPENSATION ACT OF 2000 Henry Cohen, American Law Division Updated April 13, 2000 Abstract. This report More information The Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2001. IN THE MATTER OF an appeal pursuant to section 149 of the Act (Appeal No.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT WELLINGTON DECISION No. 33/2005 UNDER The Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2001 IN THE MATTER OF an appeal pursuant to section 149 of the Act (Appeal No. More information Page 1 of 9. Table of Contents
Table of Contents 1. Executive Summary Page 2 2. Introduction.. Page 3 3. Definitions of Occupational Disease. Page 4 4. Occupational Disease Branch. Page 6 5. Adversarial vs. Inquiry.. Page 7 6. Quicker More information EL TRIGGER IN THE SUPREME COURT: WHAT HAPPENED AND WHAT S NEXT?
EL TRIGGER IN THE SUPREME COURT: WHAT HAPPENED AND WHAT S NEXT? 1. The Supreme Court's decision in the EL Trigger test cases (BAI (Run Off) v Durham [2012]UKSC14) reinstates the practice of employers liability More information Damages for loss of chance in negligence: the availability of an alternative remedy. Andrew Barker
Damages for loss of chance in negligence: the availability of an alternative remedy Andrew Barker Introduction Damages for loss of chance are damages for the loss of an opportunity to obtain or receive More information )LQDQFLDO$VVXUDQFH,VVXHV RI(QYLURQPHQWDO/LDELOLW\
)LQDQFLDO$VVXUDQFH,VVXHV RI(QYLURQPHQWDO/LDELOLW\ ([HFXWLYH6XPPDU\ %\ 3URI'U0LFKDHO*)DXUH//0 DQG 0U'DYLG*ULPHDXG Maastricht University and European Centre for Tort and Insurance Law (ECTIL) Final version More information Alternative Burdens May Come With Alternative Causes
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Alternative Burdens May Come With Alternative Causes More information MARCH 2013. Germaine v Hexham & St Helier University Hospital NHS Trust (Lawtel 4/2/2013) Page. 1 Employers Liability Contributory Negligence
Page 1 Employers Liability Contributory Negligence 2 Employers Liability Mesothelioma MARCH 2013 4 Fraud Death by Dangerous Driving Germaine v Hexham & St Helier University Hospital NHS Trust (Lawtel 4/2/2013) More information Contents. Acknowledgements Table of Cases Table of Legislation
Acknowledgements Table of Cases Table of Legislation ix xix xxix 1. Introduction 1 I. The Disintegration of the Modern Law 1 A. A Very Brief History 1 B. Implications of the Development of the Modern Law: More information Response of Browne Jacobson LLP (Solicitors) Civil Law Reform Bill - CP53/09
Response of Browne Jacobson LLP (Solicitors) - CP53/09 February 2010 Contents Contents... 2 Introduction... 3 Browne Jacobson LLP... 3 Interest in the Consultation... 3 The Response... 3 Summary... 4 Response More information www.costsbarrister.co.uk NIHL and success fees Andrew Hogan Barrister at law 1
www.costsbarrister.co.uk NIHL and success fees Andrew Hogan Barrister at law 1 On 13 th March 2015 at 4pm, Mr Justice Phillips handed down judgment in conjoined cases, Dalton and others.v.british Telecommunications More information Step-by-step guide to pursuing a medical negligence claim
Step-by-step guide to pursuing a medical negligence claim Suffering from medical negligence can be a painful and distressing experience for anyone. This short guide offers some advice to help people thinking More information LEGALWISE SEMINARS Perth, 13 May 2009. Geoffrey Hancy. BJuris (Hons) LLB (Hons) BEc LLM Email: geoff@hancy.net Web: www.hancy.net
LEGALWISE SEMINARS Perth, 13 May 2009 MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE DUTY OF CARE OF MEDICAL PRACTITIONER Geoffrey Hancy BJuris (Hons) LLB (Hons) BEc LLM Email: geoff@hancy.net Web: www.hancy.net Introduction 1 I More information Clinical negligence. Grounds
Clinical negligence Clinical negligence occurs when the care or treatment the Claimant received from a health service provider was below the standard that is expected. This test was established in the More information Defendant has a duty to act as a reasonable person would in like or similar circumstances to avoid causing unreasonable risk of harm to others.
NEGLIGENCE (Heavily Tested) (Write On the Bar): In order for Plaintiff to recover in Negligence, she or he must plead and prove: DUTY, BREACH OF DUTY, ACTUAL CAUSATION, PROXIMATE CAUSATION, AND DAMAGES. More information GADSBY WICKS SOLICITORS EXPLANATION OF LEGAL TERMS
EXPLANATION OF LEGAL TERMS Affidavit: After the event litigation insurance: Application notice: Bar Council: Barrister: Basic Charges: Before the Event Legal Expenses Insurance: Bill of costs: Bolam test: More information Weiler, Maloney, Nelson
Forum North 2015 November 3, 2015 Supervisor Case Study: When Health & Safety is a Crime Weiler, Maloney, Nelson Brad Smith Bill C-45 Criminal Code amended easier to convict a corporation of criminal negligence More information Medical Negligence. A guide for clients. The team provides a first class service at all levels of experience. The Legal 500
www.ffw.com/personalinjury Freephone 0800 358 3848 www.ffw.com/personalinjury Freephone 0800 358 3848 Medical Negligence A guide for clients The team provides a first class service at all levels of experience. More information How they affect. Dr Mark Corcoran 8 th Feb 2013
How they affect YOU! Dr Mark Corcoran 8 th Feb 2013 ACCOUNTABILITY Civil Liability Negligence Criminal Liability Assault and Battery Manslaughter Professional Accountability Disciplinary Hearings Complaints More information 2017 © DocPlayer.net Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Feedback