Davies v University Hospital of North Staffordshire NHS Trust & Anor

Davies v University Hospital of North Staffordshire NHS Trust & Anor

The doctors who examined the Claimant on 6 and 28 January 2001 acted in accordance with a responsible body of professional opinion. There was a logical basis for their diagnosis and management, and no breach of duty occurred. The failure to arrange a brain scan or paediatric follow-up did not fall below the standard of care required in the circumstances as known to the clinicians at the time.

Parties
Claimant: Tracy Davies (by her Mother and Litigation Friend, Janet Davies); First Defendant: University Hospital of North Staffordshire NHS Trust; Second Defendant: The Walton Centre NHS Foundation Trust
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 November 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Medical Negligence / Determination of Preliminary Issue (breach of Duty) After Trial
Outcome
Claim against the First Defendant dismissed
Legal Topics
Standard of Care, Breach of Duty, Medical Malpractice, Clinical Judgment, Professional Negligence
Tort Law Medical Negligence Standard of Care Breach of Duty Medical Malpractice Clinical Judgment Professional Negligence

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 1 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tracy Davies (by her Mother and Litigation Friend, Janet Davies)

Claimant

University Hospital of North Staffordshire NHS Trust

First Defendant

The Walton Centre NHS Foundation Trust

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Medical Negligence / Determination of Preliminary Issue (breach of Duty) After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the First Defendant breached its duty of care to the Claimant by failing to arrange a brain scan or paediatric follow-up on 6 January 2001 or 28 January 2001.

Ratio Decidendi

The doctors who examined the Claimant on 6 and 28 January 2001 acted in accordance with a responsible body of professional opinion. There was a logical basis for their diagnosis and management, and no breach of duty occurred. The failure to arrange a brain scan or paediatric follow-up did not fall below the standard of care required in the circumstances as known to the clinicians at the time.

Court Disposition

Claim against the First Defendant dismissed

Orders

  • The Claimant’s claim against the First Defendant is dismissed.
  • The Claimant to pay the First Defendant’s costs to be assessed if not agreed, with the basis of assessment and enforcement of costs reserved to the conclusion of the action against the Second Defendant.