MARGUERITE HENDERSON AGAINST BENARTY MEDICAL PRACTICE [2022] ScotCS CSOH_28 (24 March 2022)

MARGUERITE HENDERSON AGAINST BENARTY MEDICAL PRACTICE [2022] ScotCS CSOH_28 (24 March 2022)

The court found that the evidence did not establish, on the balance of probabilities, that the pursuer did not cancel her appointment or that the defenders' staff breached their duty of care in the handling of the appointment and communication. The contemporaneous records and the receptionist's evidence were preferred over the pursuer's recollection, and the defenders were not liable for the subsequent harm suffered by the pursuer.

Citation
[2022] ScotCS CSOH_28
Parties
Pursuer: Marguerite Henderson; Defenders: Benarty Medical Practice
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
24 March 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Medical Negligence / Proof Before Answer (liability Breach of Duty Only)
Outcome
Decree of absolvitor granted in favour of the defenders.
Legal Topics
Breach of Duty, Causation, Medical Records, Patient Communication, Appointment Cancellation
Medical Negligence Tort/delict Personal Injury Breach of Duty Causation Medical Records Patient Communication Appointment Cancellation

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

Marguerite Henderson

Pursuer

Benarty Medical Practice

Defenders

Procedural Posture

Civil Medical Negligence / Proof Before Answer (liability Breach of Duty Only)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuer cancelled her medical appointment on 28 February 2018
  2. 2 Whether the defenders' staff breached their duty of care in handling the appointment and communication with the pursuer

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the evidence did not establish, on the balance of probabilities, that the pursuer did not cancel her appointment or that the defenders' staff breached their duty of care in the handling of the appointment and communication. The contemporaneous records and the receptionist's evidence were preferred over the pursuer's recollection, and the defenders were not liable for the subsequent harm suffered by the pursuer.

Court Disposition

Decree of absolvitor granted in favour of the defenders.

Orders

  • Action dismissed; no liability found against Benarty Medical Practice.