JD v Lothian Health Board [2017] ScotCS CSIH_27 (28 April 2017)

JD v Lothian Health Board [2017] ScotCS CSIH_27 (28 April 2017)

The pursuer's pleadings do not disclose actionable damage as required by law, since only emotional distress is averred and no physical injury or psychiatric illness is alleged; delay in hormone treatment was due to pursuer's own refusal, not defender's negligence. The action is irrelevant and must be dismissed.

Citation
[2017] ScotCS CSIH_27
Parties
Pursuer & Reclaimer: JD; Defender & Respondent: Lothian Health Board
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
28 April 2017
Procedural Posture
Reclaiming Motion (appeal) Against Interlocutor Dismissing Action / Appeal (inner House, Court of Session)
Outcome
Reclaiming motion refused; action dismissed.
Legal Topics
Clinical Negligence, Misdiagnosis, Causation, Damages, Expert Evidence, Pleadings, Human Rights (article 6 Echr)
Medical Negligence Personal Injury Civil Procedure Clinical Negligence Misdiagnosis Causation Damages Expert Evidence +2 more

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

JD

Pursuer & Reclaimer

Lothian Health Board

Defender & Respondent

Procedural Posture

Reclaiming Motion (appeal) Against Interlocutor Dismissing Action / Appeal (inner House, Court of Session)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether pursuer's pleadings satisfy the Hunter v Hanley test for clinical negligence
  2. 2 Whether pursuer has averred actionable damage caused by alleged negligence
  3. 3 Adequacy of expert evidence and pleadings in medical negligence actions

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer's pleadings do not disclose actionable damage as required by law, since only emotional distress is averred and no physical injury or psychiatric illness is alleged; delay in hormone treatment was due to pursuer's own refusal, not defender's negligence. The action is irrelevant and must be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Reclaiming motion refused; action dismissed.

Orders

  • Action dismissed as irrelevant; all questions of expenses reserved.