Beech v Timney & Anor [2013] EWHC 2345 (QB) (29 July 2013)

Beech v Timney & Anor [2013] EWHC 2345 (QB) (29 July 2013)

On the balance of probabilities, Dr Timney took and recorded the claimant's blood pressure accurately on 23 March 2003. The evidence did not demonstrate that a causative act of negligence lay behind the stroke. Even if negligence were established, treatment would not have prevented the stroke within the relevant timeframe. The claim fails on both breach and causation.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 2345
Parties
Claimant: Joseph Michael Beech; 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 / Judgment After Trial on Preliminary Issues of Breach of Duty and Causation
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Breach of Duty, Causation, Stroke, Blood Pressure Measurement, AVM, Material Contribution
Medical Negligence Tort Breach of Duty Causation Stroke Blood Pressure Measurement AVM Material Contribution

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joseph Michael Beech

Claimant

Joanne Mounsey

Litigation Friend

Dr A P Timney

1st Defendant

Mr A W Paterson

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Clinical Negligence / Judgment After Trial on Preliminary Issues of Breach of Duty and Causation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was Dr Timney's blood pressure reading of 21 March 2003 taken and recorded with reasonable care?
  2. 2 If not, would a reading taken and recorded with such care have resulted in the initiation of treatment which would have prevented the stroke?

Ratio Decidendi

On the balance of probabilities, Dr Timney took and recorded the claimant's blood pressure accurately on 23 March 2003. The evidence did not demonstrate that a causative act of negligence lay behind the stroke. Even if negligence were established, treatment would not have prevented the stroke within the relevant timeframe. The claim fails on both breach and causation.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed