Raggett, The Executors of the Estate of v Kings College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust & Ors [2016] EWHC 1604 (QB) (01 July 2016)

Raggett, The Executors of the Estate of v Kings College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust & Ors [2016] EWHC 1604 (QB) (01 July 2016)

The Second, Third, Fifth and Sixth Defendants were negligent in failing to consider and exclude vascular causes for the claimant's pain, particularly given his arteriopathic history. This failure amounted to a breach of duty. However, the court found that the leg was already severely compromised by chronic...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 1604 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: The Executors of the Estate of John Raggett (deceased); First Defendant: Kings College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust; Second Defendant: Alfred Franklin; Third Defendant: Syed Asad Hussain; Fourth Defendant: Shirzad Houshian; Fifth Defendant: BMI Healthcare; Sixth Defendant: Magdi Henein Hanna
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 July 2016
Procedural Posture
Clinical Negligence Claim / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim succeeds on negligence but fails on causation; no damages awarded for amputation or loss.
Legal Topics
Clinical Negligence, Duty of Care, Causation, Personal Injury, Medical Malpractice
Tort Medical Law Clinical Negligence Duty of Care Causation Personal Injury Medical Malpractice

Source-derived case record

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Executors of the Estate of John Raggett (deceased)

Claimant

Kings College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust

First Defendant

Alfred Franklin

Second Defendant

Syed Asad Hussain

Third Defendant

Shirzad Houshian

Fourth Defendant

BMI Healthcare

Fifth Defendant

Magdi Henein Hanna

Sixth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Clinical Negligence Claim / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Second, Third, Fifth and Sixth Defendants were negligent in their treatment of the deceased
  2. 2 Whether the negligence caused or contributed to the need for amputation and subsequent loss and damage
  3. 3 Whether earlier diagnosis would have altered the outcome

Ratio Decidendi

The Second, Third, Fifth and Sixth Defendants were negligent in failing to consider and exclude vascular causes for the claimant's pain, particularly given his arteriopathic history. This failure amounted to a breach of duty. However, the court found that the leg was already severely compromised by chronic peripheral arterial disease and earlier diagnosis would not have prevented the amputation, though it may have delayed it.

Court Disposition

Claim succeeds on negligence but fails on causation; no damages awarded for amputation or loss.

Orders

  • Declaration of negligence against Second, Third, Fifth and Sixth Defendants
  • No order for damages as causation not established