NM v Lanarkshire Health Board [2013] ScotCS CSIH_3 (23 January 2013)

NM v Lanarkshire Health Board [2013] ScotCS CSIH_3 (23 January 2013)

The court held that the consultant obstetrician was not under a duty to advise the pursuer of the very small risk of grave adverse outcome from shoulder dystocia, absent specific inquiry. The approach taken was endorsed by expert evidence and prevailing responsible professional practice. Expression of general concern did not trigger a duty to provide detailed risk information. The Lord Ordinary's findings on credibility and causation were upheld; the pursuer would not have opted for caesarean section even if advised of the risks.

Citation
[2013] ScotCS CSIH_3
Parties
Pursuer and Reclaimer: N M; Defenders and Respondents: Lanarkshire Health Board
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
23 January 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Reclaiming Motion (appeal) From Lord Ordinary's Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; Lord Ordinary's decision affirmed; defenders assoilzied.
Legal Topics
Duty to Advise of Risks, Consent in Medical Treatment, Professional Negligence, Causation, Patient Autonomy
Medical Negligence Personal Injury Tort Law Duty to Advise of Risks Consent in Medical Treatment Professional Negligence Causation Patient Autonomy

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 7 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

N M

Pursuer and Reclaimer

Lanarkshire Health Board

Defenders and Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Reclaiming Motion (appeal) From Lord Ordinary's Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the consultant obstetrician owed a duty to advise the pursuer of risks associated with vaginal delivery, particularly shoulder dystocia
  2. 2 Whether expression of concern by the pursuer triggered a duty to provide detailed risk information
  3. 3 Whether the management of labour was negligent, particularly in interpretation of CTG trace and failure to intervene

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the consultant obstetrician was not under a duty to advise the pursuer of the very small risk of grave adverse outcome from shoulder dystocia, absent specific inquiry. The approach taken was endorsed by expert evidence and prevailing responsible professional practice. Expression of general concern did not trigger a duty to provide detailed risk information. The Lord Ordinary's findings on credibility and causation were upheld; the pursuer would not have opted for caesarean section even if advised of the risks.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; Lord Ordinary's decision affirmed; defenders assoilzied.

Orders

  • No reparation awarded to pursuer.
  • Defenders remain assoilzied (absolved from liability).