EXP v Barker

EXP v Barker

The judge was entitled to reject the evidence of Dr Molyneux due to lack of independence and objectivity, and to prefer the evidence of Dr Butler and Mr Kirkpatrick, establishing that a competent neuroradiologist would have identified the aneurysm and referred the patient for further investigation, thus satisfying the Bolam test for negligence.

Parties
Respondent (claimant): EXP; Appellant (defendant): Dr Charles Simon Barker
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 February 2017
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Bolam Test, Expert Evidence, Conflict of Interest, Standard of Care
Medical Negligence Tort Law Bolam Test Expert Evidence Conflict of Interest Standard of Care

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

EXP

Respondent (claimant)

Dr Charles Simon Barker

Appellant (defendant)

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the MRI scan in 1999 indicated the presence of an aneurysm which a reasonably competent neuroradiologist would have identified and reported
  2. 2 Whether the judge correctly formulated and applied the Bolam test
  3. 3 Whether the expert evidence was properly evaluated given issues of independence and partiality

Ratio Decidendi

The judge was entitled to reject the evidence of Dr Molyneux due to lack of independence and objectivity, and to prefer the evidence of Dr Butler and Mr Kirkpatrick, establishing that a competent neuroradiologist would have identified the aneurysm and referred the patient for further investigation, thus satisfying the Bolam test for negligence.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.