RP v Duncan [2013] ScotCS CSOH_41 (08 March 2013)

RP v Duncan [2013] ScotCS CSOH_41 (08 March 2013)

The pursuer's averments, if proved, could establish that the first defenders' failures resulted in the absence of a pregnancy test result, which in turn led to the pursuer being wrongly advised she was not pregnant and to the subsequent harm. The case should proceed to proof before answer.

Citation
[2013] ScotCS CSOH_41
Parties
Pursuer: AP on behalf of RP (AP); First Defenders: Dr Janice A Duncan, Dr J S Bumbra, Dr K J Thompson, Dr A Crosby; Second Defender: Dr Pauline Fleming
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
08 March 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Medical Negligence / Procedure Roll Hearing on Motion to Dismiss (pleadings Challenge)
Outcome
Motion to dismiss refused; case remitted to proof before answer.
Legal Topics
Causation, Duty of Care, Proof Before Answer, Administrative Error in Medical Practice
Medical Negligence Tort Law Causation Duty of Care Proof Before Answer Administrative Error in Medical Practice

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 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AP on behalf of RP (AP)

Pursuer

Dr Janice A Duncan, Dr J S Bumbra, Dr K J Thompson, Dr A Crosby

First Defenders

Dr Pauline Fleming

Second Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil Medical Negligence / Procedure Roll Hearing on Motion to Dismiss (pleadings Challenge)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuer's pleadings disclose a relevant case of causation against the first defenders for the alleged injury to RP
  2. 2 Whether the administrative failures of the first defenders can be said to have caused the harm suffered by RP

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer's averments, if proved, could establish that the first defenders' failures resulted in the absence of a pregnancy test result, which in turn led to the pursuer being wrongly advised she was not pregnant and to the subsequent harm. The case should proceed to proof before answer.

Court Disposition

Motion to dismiss refused; case remitted to proof before answer.

Orders

  • Remit action to proof before answer.