Beasley (AP) v Fife Health Board [2001] ScotCS 229 (10 October 2001)

Beasley (AP) v Fife Health Board [2001] ScotCS 229 (10 October 2001)

The court found that Mr Adam acted in accordance with the standard practice and knowledge available in 1991, and that his clinical judgment in not applying suprapubic pressure or episiotomy was reasonable given the urgency and risks present. There was a respectable body of medical opinion supporting his actions, and the pursuer failed to prove that the omissions amounted to negligence under Hunter v Hanley. Accordingly, the defenders were not liable.

Citation
[2001] ScotCS 229
Parties
Pursuer: Carol Beasley (AP) for Aimie Beasley; Defender: Fife Health Board
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
10 October 2001
Procedural Posture
Reparation (medical Negligence) / Outer House, Court of Session, Final Judgment
Outcome
Defenders assoilzied (absolved); action dismissed
Legal Topics
Standard of Care, Shoulder Dystocia, Obstetric Practice, Erb's Palsy, Supra Pubic Pressure, Episiotomy, Expert Evidence
Medical Negligence Personal Injury Tort Standard of Care Shoulder Dystocia Obstetric Practice Erb's Palsy Supra Pubic Pressure +2 more

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Carol Beasley (AP) for Aimie Beasley

Pursuer

Fife Health Board

Defender

Procedural Posture

Reparation (medical Negligence) / Outer House, Court of Session, Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr Adam failed to exercise the ordinary skill of a competent obstetrician in 1991 by not changing maternal position and not applying suprapubic pressure during shoulder dystocia
  2. 2 Whether such omissions constituted negligence causing injury to Aimie Beasley

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that Mr Adam acted in accordance with the standard practice and knowledge available in 1991, and that his clinical judgment in not applying suprapubic pressure or episiotomy was reasonable given the urgency and risks present. There was a respectable body of medical opinion supporting his actions, and the pursuer failed to prove that the omissions amounted to negligence under Hunter v Hanley. Accordingly, the defenders were not liable.

Court Disposition

Defenders assoilzied (absolved); action dismissed