Meiklejohn v St George's Healthcare NHS Trust & Anor [2014] EWCA Civ 120 (13 February 2014)

Meiklejohn v St George's Healthcare NHS Trust & Anor [2014] EWCA Civ 120 (13 February 2014)

The evidence did not establish that Prof Marsh breached her duty of care in clinical examination, diagnosis, or consent. There was no clinical basis to suspect DC in 2003, verbal consent for research was obtained, and the claimant would have accepted the recommended treatment regardless. No causation was established under Chester v Afshar. The appeal is dismissed.

Citation
[2014] EWCA Civ 120
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Richard Meiklejohn; Defendant/respondent: St George's Healthcare NHS Trust; Defendant/respondent: Homerton University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 February 2014
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Informed Consent, Standard of Care, Causation, Clinical Diagnosis, Expert Evidence, Costs
Medical Negligence Clinical Negligence Tort Law Informed Consent Standard of Care Causation Clinical Diagnosis Expert Evidence +1 more

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Richard Meiklejohn

Claimant/appellant

St George's Healthcare NHS Trust

Defendant/respondent

Homerton University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Prof Marsh breached her duty of care in clinical examination and diagnosis of AA versus DC
  2. 2 Whether there was a failure to obtain informed consent for research blood sample
  3. 3 Whether there was a failure to warn of alternative diagnoses and treatments

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence did not establish that Prof Marsh breached her duty of care in clinical examination, diagnosis, or consent. There was no clinical basis to suspect DC in 2003, verbal consent for research was obtained, and the claimant would have accepted the recommended treatment regardless. No causation was established under Chester v Afshar. The appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No finding of negligence against Prof Marsh or the defendant trusts
  • Costs order and damages set-off upheld