Glancy v The Southern General Hospital NHS Trust [2013] ScotCS CSOH_35 (01 March 2013)

Glancy v The Southern General Hospital NHS Trust [2013] ScotCS CSOH_35 (01 March 2013)

The pursuer failed to prove that Mr Johnston's actions fell below the standard of an ordinarily competent neurosurgeon. The court found that Mr Johnston did not tell Mr Glancy there was no risk of paralysis, but rather advised him that the risk was tiny. Even if there had been a failure to warn, causation was not established as Mr Glancy would have consented to the operation regardless. The pursuer's expert evidence was found less reliable than the defender's, and the court preferred the defender's account and expert testimony.

Citation
[2013] ScotCS CSOH_35
Parties
Pursuer: Alexander Glancy; Defender: The Southern General Hospital NHS Trust
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
01 March 2013
Procedural Posture
Medical Negligence Action / Judgment After Proof (trial) on Liability
Outcome
Action dismissed
Legal Topics
Consent to Medical Treatment, Standard of Care in Surgery, Causation in Negligence, Expert Evidence in Medical Cases
Medical Negligence Personal Injury Consent to Medical Treatment Standard of Care in Surgery Causation in Negligence Expert Evidence in Medical Cases

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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alexander Glancy

Pursuer

The Southern General Hospital NHS Trust

Defender

Procedural Posture

Medical Negligence Action / Judgment After Proof (trial) on Liability

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did Mr Johnston fail to warn Mr Glancy of the significant risk of paralysis and tetraplegia?
  2. 2 Did Mr Johnston fail to carry out proper investigations before proceeding with posterior fixation and fusion?
  3. 3 Did Mr Johnston fail to decompress the spinal cord or explore for haematoma during the fourth operation?

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer failed to prove that Mr Johnston's actions fell below the standard of an ordinarily competent neurosurgeon. The court found that Mr Johnston did not tell Mr Glancy there was no risk of paralysis, but rather advised him that the risk was tiny. Even if there had been a failure to warn, causation was not established as Mr Glancy would have consented to the operation regardless. The pursuer's expert evidence was found less reliable than the defender's, and the court preferred the defender's account and expert testimony.

Court Disposition

Action dismissed

Orders

  • Pursuer's claim dismissed; no damages awarded.