McGlone v Greater Glasgow Health Board [2011] ScotCS CSOH_63 (06 April 2011)

McGlone v Greater Glasgow Health Board [2011] ScotCS CSOH_63 (06 April 2011)

The pursuer failed to prove on balance of probabilities that, had the cervical smears in December 2005 or March 2006 been correctly interpreted and reported, she would have received conservative treatment preserving fertility. The evidence established that by early 2006 the pursuer already had significant invasive adenocarcinoma requiring radical hysterectomy, and the outcome would have been materially the same regardless of the defenders' negligence.

Citation
[2011] ScotCS CSOH_63
Parties
Pursuer: Helen McGlone; Defender: Greater Glasgow Health Board
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
06 April 2011
Procedural Posture
Medical Negligence Action / Judgment After Proof Restricted to Causation
Outcome
Action dismissed
Legal Topics
Causation, Onus of Proof, Misinterpretation of Medical Tests, Loss of Fertility
Medical Negligence Tort Causation Onus of Proof Misinterpretation of Medical Tests Loss of Fertility

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Helen McGlone

Pursuer

Greater Glasgow Health Board

Defender

Procedural Posture

Medical Negligence Action / Judgment After Proof Restricted to Causation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether misinterpretation and misreporting of cervical smear tests caused loss and damage to pursuer
  2. 2 Whether earlier diagnosis would have resulted in more conservative treatment preserving fertility

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer failed to prove on balance of probabilities that, had the cervical smears in December 2005 or March 2006 been correctly interpreted and reported, she would have received conservative treatment preserving fertility. The evidence established that by early 2006 the pursuer already had significant invasive adenocarcinoma requiring radical hysterectomy, and the outcome would have been materially the same regardless of the defenders' negligence.

Court Disposition

Action dismissed