JAH v Burne & Ors [2018] EWHC 3461 (QB) (14 December 2018)

JAH v Burne & Ors [2018] EWHC 3461 (QB) (14 December 2018)

The Defendants admitted breaches of duty in failing to check pedal pulses, failing to refer for vascular opinion, and failing to communicate relevant history. However, on the balance of probabilities, the court found that, even with proper assessment and earlier referral, the rare thrombo-embolic pathology would not have been identified and treated in time to avoid the amputations. The standard of care was met in triage and discharge, and the admitted breaches were not causative of the loss of the Claimant's limbs.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 3461
Parties
Claimant: JAH (by her litigation friend DXT); First Defendant: Dr Matthew Burne; Second Defendant: Dr Hilary Devonshire; Third Defendant: Dr Louise Jackson; Fourth Defendant: Yeovil District Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 December 2018
Procedural Posture
Clinical Negligence / High Court Trial, Post Admissions, Judgment on Breach and Causation
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Clinical Negligence, Breach of Duty, Causation, Damages, Standard of Care, Admissions of Liability
Tort Medical Negligence Clinical Negligence Breach of Duty Causation Damages Standard of Care Admissions of Liability

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

Parties

JAH (by her litigation friend DXT)

Claimant

Dr Matthew Burne

First Defendant

Dr Hilary Devonshire

Second Defendant

Dr Louise Jackson

Third Defendant

Yeovil District Hospital NHS Foundation Trust

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Clinical Negligence / High Court Trial, Post Admissions, Judgment on Breach and Causation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendants breached their duty of care to the Claimant in the management of her vascular symptoms in May-June 2012
  2. 2 Whether earlier referral and treatment would have avoided amputation of the Claimant's limbs
  3. 3 Whether the admitted breaches of duty were causative of the injuries suffered

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendants admitted breaches of duty in failing to check pedal pulses, failing to refer for vascular opinion, and failing to communicate relevant history. However, on the balance of probabilities, the court found that, even with proper assessment and earlier referral, the rare thrombo-embolic pathology would not have been identified and treated in time to avoid the amputations. The standard of care was met in triage and discharge, and the admitted breaches were not causative of the loss of the Claimant's limbs.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • No damages awarded to the Claimant
  • Costs to be determined in accordance with standard rules