SD AS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF LD AGAINST GRAMPIAN HEALTH BOARD [2024] ScotCS CSIH_7 (19 April 2024)

SD AS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF LD AGAINST GRAMPIAN HEALTH BOARD [2024] ScotCS CSIH_7 (19 April 2024)

The court held that Dr Sripada's interpretation of the CTG trace and decision to review in 30 minutes was within the range of reasonable professional judgment; expert evidence demonstrated that competent practitioners could differ. No breach of duty was established against Dr Sripada or the unnamed ward round doctors. Causation was not proved, as there was no evidence that earlier transfer or intervention would have prevented the unforeseeable rapid labour and cord occlusion. The scope of duty did not extend to the consequences of such unpredictable events.

Citation
[2024] ScotCS CSIH_7
Parties
Pursuer and Reclaimer: SD as Legal Representative of LD; Defender and Respondent: Grampian Health Board
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
19 April 2024
Procedural Posture
Reclaiming Motion (appeal) in Medical Negligence Action / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Reclaiming motion refused; Lord Ordinary's interlocutor adhered to.
Legal Topics
Professional Negligence, Causation, Standard of Care, Scope of Duty, Remoteness of Damage
Medical Negligence Personal Injury Tort Law Professional Negligence Causation Standard of Care Scope of Duty Remoteness of Damage

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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SD as Legal Representative of LD

Pursuer and Reclaimer

Grampian Health Board

Defender and Respondent

Procedural Posture

Reclaiming Motion (appeal) in Medical Negligence Action / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Dr Sripada was negligent in failing to arrange an emergency caesarean section at 0410 hours on 24 August 2008
  2. 2 Whether unnamed ward round doctors were negligent in failing to direct administration of Prostin or transfer to labour ward
  3. 3 Whether any negligent acts or omissions caused or contributed to LD's injuries

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that Dr Sripada's interpretation of the CTG trace and decision to review in 30 minutes was within the range of reasonable professional judgment; expert evidence demonstrated that competent practitioners could differ. No breach of duty was established against Dr Sripada or the unnamed ward round doctors. Causation was not proved, as there was no evidence that earlier transfer or intervention would have prevented the unforeseeable rapid labour and cord occlusion. The scope of duty did not extend to the consequences of such unpredictable events.

Court Disposition

Reclaiming motion refused; Lord Ordinary's interlocutor adhered to.

Orders

  • No damages awarded
  • No finding of negligence against Dr Sripada or ward round doctors