Thomson (AP) v Lothian Health Board [2000] ScotCS 109 (20 April 2000)

Thomson (AP) v Lothian Health Board [2000] ScotCS 109 (20 April 2000)

The pursuer failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that Dr Ball breached his duty of care in obtaining informed consent or administering anaesthesia. The evidence showed that Dr Ball acted competently, informed the pursuer of options, and responded appropriately during surgery. The pursuer's account of extreme pain and psychological harm was not supported by contemporaneous records or credible evidence. Accordingly, no negligence was established.

Citation
[2000] ScotCS 109
Parties
Pursuer: Mrs Gillian Thomson (AP); Defenders: Lothian Health Board
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
20 April 2000
Procedural Posture
Civil Medical Negligence / Outer House, Court of Session Judgment
Outcome
Action dismissed; decree of absolvitor granted in favour of defenders.
Legal Topics
Medical Negligence, Informed Consent, Anaesthesia, Damages
Medical Law Tort Law Medical Negligence Informed Consent Anaesthesia Damages

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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mrs Gillian Thomson (AP)

Pursuer

Lothian Health Board

Defenders

Procedural Posture

Civil Medical Negligence / Outer House, Court of Session Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Dr Ball failed in his duty of care in administering anaesthesia and obtaining informed consent for caesarean section
  2. 2 Whether the pursuer suffered extreme pain due to inadequate anaesthesia and whether this constituted negligence
  3. 3 Whether the pursuer's psychological condition was caused by the events during the caesarean section

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that Dr Ball breached his duty of care in obtaining informed consent or administering anaesthesia. The evidence showed that Dr Ball acted competently, informed the pursuer of options, and responded appropriately during surgery. The pursuer's account of extreme pain and psychological harm was not supported by contemporaneous records or credible evidence. Accordingly, no negligence was established.

Court Disposition

Action dismissed; decree of absolvitor granted in favour of defenders.

Orders

  • All pleas for the pursuer repelled.
  • Defenders' third and fourth pleas sustained.