IAN BRITTEN AGAINST TAYSIDE HEALTH BOARD [2016] ScotSC 75 (03 November 2016)
Although the doctors breached their duty by failing to advise the pursuer of the alternative of steroid injection and its risks and benefits, the pursuer would not have chosen that alternative even if properly advised. Therefore, the breach did not cause his loss.
- Citation
- [2016] ScotSC 75
- Parties
- Pursuer: Ian Francis Britten; Defender: Tayside Health Board
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judgment Date
- 03 November 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Medical Negligence / Judgment After Proof
- Outcome
- Decree of absolvitor granted in favour of the defenders.
- Legal Topics
- Informed Consent, Duty to Advise of Risks, Alternative Treatments, Causation, Montgomery V Lanarkshire Health Board
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Ian Francis Britten
Pursuer
Tayside Health Board
Defender
Procedural Posture
Civil Medical Negligence / Judgment After Proof
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the doctors breached their duty of care by failing to advise the pursuer of the availability and risks of steroid injection as an alternative to oral steroids for pan-uveitis.
- 2 Whether such breach caused the pursuer's psychiatric injury and loss.
Ratio Decidendi
Although the doctors breached their duty by failing to advise the pursuer of the alternative of steroid injection and its risks and benefits, the pursuer would not have chosen that alternative even if properly advised. Therefore, the breach did not cause his loss.
Court Disposition
Decree of absolvitor granted in favour of the defenders.
Orders
- Second and third pleas in law for the defenders sustained.
- Decree of absolvitor granted.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment