Watts v North Bristol NHS Trust [2022] EWHC 2048 (QB) (29 July 2022)

Watts v North Bristol NHS Trust [2022] EWHC 2048 (QB) (29 July 2022)

The claimant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that he would have chosen microdiscectomy over fusion if properly advised, and thus causation was not established. The trial judge's findings were not plainly wrong and could not be overturned on appeal.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 2048 (QB)
Parties
Appellant: Mr Daniel Watts; Respondent: North Bristol NHS Trust
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 July 2022
Procedural Posture
Clinical Negligence Appeal / High Court Appeal From County Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Informed Consent, Clinical Negligence, Causation, Damages
Medical Law Tort Law Informed Consent Clinical Negligence Causation Damages

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Daniel Watts

Appellant

North Bristol NHS Trust

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Clinical Negligence Appeal / High Court Appeal From County Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant would have chosen microdiscectomy over spinal fusion if properly advised (causation)
  2. 2 Whether the claimant would have had a better outcome with microdiscectomy (quantum of damages)

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that he would have chosen microdiscectomy over fusion if properly advised, and thus causation was not established. The trial judge's findings were not plainly wrong and could not be overturned on appeal.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed