Beech v Timney & Anor [2013] EWHC 2226 (Admin) (29 July 2013)

Beech v Timney & Anor [2013] EWHC 2226 (Admin) (29 July 2013)

On the balance of probabilities, Dr Timney took and recorded the claimant's blood pressure accurately on 23 March 2003; there was no breach of duty causative of the stroke. Even if there had been a breach, the evidence did not establish that earlier treatment would have prevented the stroke, particularly as the stroke was likely caused by an arteriovenous malformation rather than long-term severe hypertension.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 2226 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Joseph Michael Beech (by his Litigation Friend Joanne Mounsey); 1st Defendant: Dr A P Timney; 2nd Defendant: Mr A W Paterson
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 July 2013
Procedural Posture
Clinical Negligence Claim / High Court Judgment on Preliminary Issues of Breach of Duty and Causation
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Breach of Duty, Causation, Standard of Care, Medical Evidence
Medical Negligence Tort Law Breach of Duty Causation Standard of Care Medical Evidence

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joseph Michael Beech (by his Litigation Friend Joanne Mounsey)

Claimant

Dr A P Timney

1st Defendant

Mr A W Paterson

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Clinical Negligence Claim / High Court Judgment on Preliminary Issues of Breach of Duty and Causation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Dr Timney took and recorded the claimant's blood pressure with reasonable care on 23 March 2003
  2. 2 Whether any breach of duty by Dr Timney caused or materially contributed to the claimant's stroke

Ratio Decidendi

On the balance of probabilities, Dr Timney took and recorded the claimant's blood pressure accurately on 23 March 2003; there was no breach of duty causative of the stroke. Even if there had been a breach, the evidence did not establish that earlier treatment would have prevented the stroke, particularly as the stroke was likely caused by an arteriovenous malformation rather than long-term severe hypertension.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed