Winterbotham v Shahrak (Rev1) [2024] EWHC 2633 (KB) (21 October 2024)

Winterbotham v Shahrak (Rev1) [2024] EWHC 2633 (KB) (21 October 2024)

The defendant breached the duty of care by failing to provide the claimant with adequate information about material risks and reasonable alternative treatments, specifically failing to discuss the increased risk of nerve injury and the option of coronectomy. The claimant did not give informed consent. The breach caused the claimant's injury, as she would have opted for coronectomy or deferred extraction if properly informed.

Citation
[2024] EWHC 2633 (KB)
Parties
Claimant: Mrs Alison Winterbotham; Defendant: Dr Arash Zaker Shahrak
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Clinical Negligence Claim (contract and Tort) / High Court Trial, Judgment
Outcome
Claim allowed for the claimant; judgment for the claimant on liability.
Legal Topics
Informed Consent, Clinical Negligence, Dental Surgery, Duty of Care, Breach of Duty, Causation, Damages
Medical Negligence Contract Law Tort Law Informed Consent Clinical Negligence Dental Surgery Duty of Care Breach of Duty +2 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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mrs Alison Winterbotham

Claimant

Dr Arash Zaker Shahrak

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Clinical Negligence Claim (contract and Tort) / High Court Trial, Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant failed to obtain informed consent from the claimant prior to dental extraction
  2. 2 Whether the defendant failed to discuss material risks and reasonable alternative treatments (including coronectomy)
  3. 3 Whether the defendant failed to have regard to radiological evidence indicating high risk of nerve injury

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant breached the duty of care by failing to provide the claimant with adequate information about material risks and reasonable alternative treatments, specifically failing to discuss the increased risk of nerve injury and the option of coronectomy. The claimant did not give informed consent. The breach caused the claimant's injury, as she would have opted for coronectomy or deferred extraction if properly informed.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed for the claimant; judgment for the claimant on liability.

Orders

  • Defendant found liable for clinical negligence and breach of duty regarding informed consent.
  • Claimant entitled to damages (quantum to be assessed).