Constance v Ministry of Defence & Anor [2020] EWHC 3029 (QB) (11 November 2020)

Constance v Ministry of Defence & Anor [2020] EWHC 3029 (QB) (11 November 2020)

The defendants breached their duty of care by failing to advise the claimant of the surgical option for otosclerosis and by misattributing his hearing loss as NIHL, which led to unnecessary career restrictions, psychiatric injury, and premature medical discharge. The claimant would, on the balance of probabilities, have opted for surgery earlier, avoided career detriment, and not suffered psychiatric injury.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 3029 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Mr Warren Constance; First Defendant: Ministry of Defence; Second Defendant: Portsmouth Hospitals University NHS Trust
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 November 2020
Procedural Posture
Clinical Negligence Claim / High Court Trial Judgment
Outcome
Claim allowed in part; judgment for the claimant on liability and causation.
Legal Topics
Vicarious Liability, Duty of Care, Causation, Damages, Informed Consent, Misdiagnosis, Medical Records, Military Discharge
Tort Law Medical Negligence Military Law Vicarious Liability Duty of Care Causation Damages Informed Consent +3 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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Warren Constance

Claimant

Ministry of Defence

First Defendant

Portsmouth Hospitals University NHS Trust

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Clinical Negligence Claim / High Court Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants breached their duty of care by failing to advise the claimant of surgical options for his hearing loss
  2. 2 Whether the claimant's Army career and psychiatric condition would have been different but for the negligence
  3. 3 Whether the misattribution of hearing loss as NIHL rather than otosclerosis caused actionable loss

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants breached their duty of care by failing to advise the claimant of the surgical option for otosclerosis and by misattributing his hearing loss as NIHL, which led to unnecessary career restrictions, psychiatric injury, and premature medical discharge. The claimant would, on the balance of probabilities, have opted for surgery earlier, avoided career detriment, and not suffered psychiatric injury.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed in part; judgment for the claimant on liability and causation.

Orders

  • Damages to be assessed in accordance with the judgment's findings on causation and quantum.
  • Defendants held vicariously liable for negligent acts of their respective doctors.