Ollosson v Lee [2019] EWHC 784 (QB) (29 March 2019)

Ollosson v Lee [2019] EWHC 784 (QB) (29 March 2019)

The defendant failed to provide the claimant with adequate information about the risk of chronic testicular pain, including its severity and impact on quality of life, prior to the vasectomy. The information in the booklet and consent form was insufficiently clear and did not convey the true magnitude or consequences of the risk. The claimant and his wife were reassured by misleading statements and would not have proceeded with the operation had they been properly informed. The defendant breached the duty to ensure informed consent, and causation is established.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 784 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Mr Marc Ollosson; Defendant: Doctor Alan Lee
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 March 2019
Procedural Posture
Clinical Negligence / Liability Only Trial
Outcome
Claim upheld; defendant found liable for breach of duty regarding informed consent.
Legal Topics
Informed Consent, Medical Negligence, Causation, Duty of Care
Medical Law Tort Law Informed Consent Medical Negligence Causation Duty of Care

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 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Marc Ollosson

Claimant

Doctor Alan Lee

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Clinical Negligence / Liability Only Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant failed to provide adequate information about the risk of chronic testicular pain prior to vasectomy
  2. 2 Whether the information provided was sufficient for informed consent
  3. 3 If there was a breach of duty, whether the claimant would have declined the procedure if properly informed

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant failed to provide the claimant with adequate information about the risk of chronic testicular pain, including its severity and impact on quality of life, prior to the vasectomy. The information in the booklet and consent form was insufficiently clear and did not convey the true magnitude or consequences of the risk. The claimant and his wife were reassured by misleading statements and would not have proceeded with the operation had they been properly informed. The defendant breached the duty to ensure informed consent, and causation is established.

Court Disposition

Claim upheld; defendant found liable for breach of duty regarding informed consent.

Orders

  • Declaration of liability against defendant for failure to provide adequate information and obtain informed consent.
  • Matter to proceed to assessment of damages.