Bradfield-Kay v Cope [2020] EWHC 1351 (QB) (21 May 2020)

Bradfield-Kay v Cope [2020] EWHC 1351 (QB) (21 May 2020)

Mr Cope breached his duty by failing to ensure the acetabular component was not prominent and by failing to check the correct femoral component used on the contralateral side, resulting in suboptimal placement; there was no logical or reasonable basis for neglecting these precautions. The allegation regarding failure to record or investigate groin pain at the August 2010 consultation was not established as the complaint was not made at that time.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 1351
Parties
Claimant: Thomas Bradfield-Kay; Defendant: Marcus Cope
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 May 2020
Procedural Posture
Clinical Negligence Claim / Trial on Issue of Breach of Duty
Outcome
Claimant succeeds in part; breach of duty established for acetabular and femoral component placement, not for failure to record/investigate groin pain at August 2010 consultation.
Legal Topics
Standard of Care in Surgery, Bolam Test, Bolitho Exception, Orthopaedic Surgery, Hip Replacement Negligence
Medical Negligence Tort Law Standard of Care in Surgery Bolam Test Bolitho Exception Orthopaedic Surgery Hip Replacement 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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thomas Bradfield-Kay

Claimant

Marcus Cope

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Clinical Negligence Claim / Trial on Issue of Breach of Duty

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr Cope was negligent in the placement of the acetabular component during left total hip replacement
  2. 2 Whether Mr Cope was negligent in the choice and placement of the femoral component
  3. 3 Whether Mr Cope failed to record or investigate the claimant's complaints of groin pain at the 9 August 2010 consultation

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Cope breached his duty by failing to ensure the acetabular component was not prominent and by failing to check the correct femoral component used on the contralateral side, resulting in suboptimal placement; there was no logical or reasonable basis for neglecting these precautions. The allegation regarding failure to record or investigate groin pain at the August 2010 consultation was not established as the complaint was not made at that time.

Court Disposition

Claimant succeeds in part; breach of duty established for acetabular and femoral component placement, not for failure to record/investigate groin pain at August 2010 consultation.