ALAN MCNAB AND OTHERS AGAINST GREATER GLASGOW HEALTH BOARD [2020] CSOH 53 (28 May 2020)

ALAN MCNAB AND OTHERS AGAINST GREATER GLASGOW HEALTH BOARD [2020] CSOH 53 (28 May 2020)

The court found that Ms Seaward did not breach her duty of care. She discussed the risks and alternatives with the deceased, including the option of a CT scan and the risks of infection and sepsis. The consent process, though poorly documented, was sufficient and in line with normal practice at the time. There was no duty to postpone for a CT scan or to obtain urine cultures, as both proceeding and postponing were reasonable options. The deceased's ongoing pain justified proceeding. There was no evidence that the deceased would have refused the procedure if further risks were explained. The claim of negligence was not established.

Citation
[2020] CSOH 53
Parties
Pursuer: Alan McNab and others; Defender: Greater Glasgow Health Board
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
28 May 2020
Procedural Posture
Clinical Negligence Action / Judgment After Proof (trial) on Liability and Causation; Quantum Agreed
Outcome
Action dismissed
Legal Topics
Informed Consent, Standard of Care, Causation, Clinical Guidelines, Duty to Advise of Risks
Medical Negligence Tort Law Informed Consent Standard of Care Causation Clinical Guidelines Duty to Advise of Risks

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alan McNab and others

Pursuer

Greater Glasgow Health Board

Defender

Procedural Posture

Clinical Negligence Action / Judgment After Proof (trial) on Liability and Causation; Quantum Agreed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did Ms Seaward fail to obtain informed consent from the deceased?
  2. 2 Did Ms Seaward fail to confirm the continued presence of a stone before proceeding with ureteroscopy?
  3. 3 Was there a duty to obtain further imaging (CT scan) or urine cultures before the procedure?

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that Ms Seaward did not breach her duty of care. She discussed the risks and alternatives with the deceased, including the option of a CT scan and the risks of infection and sepsis. The consent process, though poorly documented, was sufficient and in line with normal practice at the time. There was no duty to postpone for a CT scan or to obtain urine cultures, as both proceeding and postponing were reasonable options. The deceased's ongoing pain justified proceeding. There was no evidence that the deceased would have refused the procedure if further risks were explained. The claim of negligence was not established.

Court Disposition

Action dismissed

Orders

  • No decree for damages; pursuers' claim refused