Plan v El-Amir & Anor [2020] EWHC 2902 (QB) (02 November 2020)

Plan v El-Amir & Anor [2020] EWHC 2902 (QB) (02 November 2020)

The first defendant was negligent in failing to obtain the claimant's informed consent for surgery and in failing to perform a peripheral iridotomy within 48 hours of raised intraocular pressure. These breaches caused the claimant's glaucoma and subsequent total loss of vision in her right eye. The claimant would not have consented to the surgery had she been properly informed of the risks and limited benefits.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 2902
Parties
Claimant: Betty Plant (by her Son and Litigation Friend, Rodney Winchester); First Defendant: Mr Ahmed El-Amir; Second Defendant: London Eye Hospital Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 November 2020
Procedural Posture
Clinical Negligence / Liability Trial (quantum to Be Determined If Necessary)
Outcome
Claim against first defendant succeeds on liability; claim against second defendant withdrawn and dismissed.
Legal Topics
Informed Consent, Standard of Care, Causation, Clinical Negligence, Ophthalmic Surgery
Tort Law Medical Negligence Informed Consent Standard of Care Causation Clinical Negligence Ophthalmic Surgery

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Betty Plant (by her Son and Litigation Friend, Rodney Winchester)

Claimant

Mr Ahmed El-Amir

First Defendant

London Eye Hospital Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Clinical Negligence / Liability Trial (quantum to Be Determined If Necessary)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the first defendant failed to obtain informed consent for surgery
  2. 2 Whether the first defendant was negligent in post-operative care, specifically in failing to perform a peripheral iridotomy (PI) in a timely manner
  3. 3 Whether the claimant's loss of vision was caused by the defendant's breaches of duty

Ratio Decidendi

The first defendant was negligent in failing to obtain the claimant's informed consent for surgery and in failing to perform a peripheral iridotomy within 48 hours of raised intraocular pressure. These breaches caused the claimant's glaucoma and subsequent total loss of vision in her right eye. The claimant would not have consented to the surgery had she been properly informed of the risks and limited benefits.

Court Disposition

Claim against first defendant succeeds on liability; claim against second defendant withdrawn and dismissed.

Orders

  • Judgment for the claimant against the first defendant on liability; quantum to be determined if necessary.
  • Claim against the second defendant dismissed upon withdrawal.