Philipa Hodgson v Dr Daniel Hammond & Anor

Philipa Hodgson v Dr Daniel Hammond & Anor

Both Defendants breached their duty of care by failing to arrange or perform pelvic examinations when PID was a working diagnosis or significant possibility, and no responsible body of general practitioners would support such omissions given the risks of untreated PID.

Parties
Claimant: Ms Philipa Hodgson; First Defendant: Dr Daniel Hammond; Second Defendant: Dr Andre Dieleman
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 May 2025
Procedural Posture
Clinical Negligence / Judgment on Breach of Duty
Outcome
Claimant succeeds on breach of duty against both Defendants.
Legal Topics
Breach of Duty, Standard of Care, Bolam Test, Bolitho Test, Pelvic Inflammatory Disease, GP Clinical Practice

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ms Philipa Hodgson

Claimant

Dr Daniel Hammond

First Defendant

Dr Andre Dieleman

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Clinical Negligence / Judgment on Breach of Duty

  1. 1 Whether the First Defendant breached duty by failing to carry out a pelvic examination on 30 August 2016
  2. 2 Whether the Second Defendant breached duty by failing to recommend or arrange a pelvic examination after the telephone consultation on 5 September 2016

Ratio Decidendi

Both Defendants breached their duty of care by failing to arrange or perform pelvic examinations when PID was a working diagnosis or significant possibility, and no responsible body of general practitioners would support such omissions given the risks of untreated PID.

Court Disposition

Claimant succeeds on breach of duty against both Defendants.

Orders

  • Judgment for the Claimant on breach of duty.
  • Quantum and prognosis to be determined in a separate judgment.