LG (AP) v Greater Glasgow Health Board [2013] ScotCS CSOH_145 (27 August 2013)

LG (AP) v Greater Glasgow Health Board [2013] ScotCS CSOH_145 (27 August 2013)

The court found that the pursuer failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that there was any negligent delay by Dr Ogah or Dr Thomas after 00.20 on 19 March 2004. The actions taken were consistent with accepted medical practice and guidelines, the urgency was appropriately communicated, and the timing of events was reasonable given the clinical situation and the pursuer's distress. There was no breach of duty established against either clinician.

Citation
[2013] ScotCS CSOH_145
Parties
Pursuer: LG (AP); Defender: Greater Glasgow Health Board
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
27 August 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Medical Negligence / Proof Before Answer (trial on Specific Issues of Negligence and Causation)
Outcome
Action dismissed
Legal Topics
Standard of Care, Causation, Obstetric Negligence, Emergency Caesarean Section, Delay in Treatment
Medical Negligence Tort Law Personal Injury Standard of Care Causation Obstetric Negligence Emergency Caesarean Section Delay in Treatment

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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

LG (AP)

Pursuer

Greater Glasgow Health Board

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil Medical Negligence / Proof Before Answer (trial on Specific Issues of Negligence and Causation)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was negligent delay by Dr Ogah and/or Dr Thomas after 00.20 on 19 March 2004 in arranging delivery of T
  2. 2 If so, when would T probably have been delivered absent such delay

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the pursuer failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that there was any negligent delay by Dr Ogah or Dr Thomas after 00.20 on 19 March 2004. The actions taken were consistent with accepted medical practice and guidelines, the urgency was appropriately communicated, and the timing of events was reasonable given the clinical situation and the pursuer's distress. There was no breach of duty established against either clinician.

Court Disposition

Action dismissed

Orders

  • The pursuer's action is dismissed.