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

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

Admissions of breach of duty were made by all Defendants except for allegations relating to 6 May 2012, which were rejected. The court found that, on the balance of probabilities, earlier referral and anti-coagulation would not have avoided the amputations due to the rare thrombo-embolic pathology and timing. The standard of care was met in triage, discharge, and patient counselling. Damages were agreed but causation was not established for avoidance of amputations.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 3461 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: JAH (by 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, Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Clinical Negligence, Duty of Care, Causation, Damages, Breach of Duty
Tort Medical Law Clinical Negligence Duty of Care Causation Damages Breach of Duty

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

Parties

JAH (by 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, Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Defendants breached duty of care in failing to examine pedal pulses, refer for vascular opinion, or adequately communicate intermittent claudication history
  2. 2 Whether earlier referral and treatment would have avoided amputations
  3. 3 Whether discharge summaries and patient counselling met standard of care

Ratio Decidendi

Admissions of breach of duty were made by all Defendants except for allegations relating to 6 May 2012, which were rejected. The court found that, on the balance of probabilities, earlier referral and anti-coagulation would not have avoided the amputations due to the rare thrombo-embolic pathology and timing. The standard of care was met in triage, discharge, and patient counselling. Damages were agreed but causation was not established for avoidance of amputations.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed