JOHNSTONE AGAINST NHS GRAMPIAN [2019] ScotCS CSOH_90 (13 November 2019)

JOHNSTONE AGAINST NHS GRAMPIAN [2019] ScotCS CSOH_90 (13 November 2019)

The court found that the pursuer was not provided with sufficient information about the material risks of surgery, the alternative of radiosurgery, or the option of no treatment, and that the defenders failed in their duty to ensure the pursuer's consent was informed as required by Montgomery. The defenders were therefore liable for the consequences of the surgery performed without true informed consent.

Citation
[2019] ScotCS CSOH_90
Parties
Pursuer: Allan Robert Johnstone; Defender: NHS Grampian
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
13 November 2019
Procedural Posture
Medical Negligence / Judgment After Proof
Outcome
Liability established against defenders for lack of informed consent.
Legal Topics
Informed Consent, Medical Negligence, Vicarious Liability, Duty to Warn of Risks, Montgomery Standard
Medical Law Tort Law Consent to Treatment Informed Consent Medical Negligence Vicarious Liability Duty to Warn of Risks Montgomery Standard

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 1 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Allan Robert Johnstone

Pursuer

NHS Grampian

Defender

Procedural Posture

Medical Negligence / Judgment After Proof

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuer gave informed consent to surgery under the standard set by Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board
  2. 2 Whether the defenders failed in their duty to provide adequate information about risks and alternatives prior to obtaining consent

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the pursuer was not provided with sufficient information about the material risks of surgery, the alternative of radiosurgery, or the option of no treatment, and that the defenders failed in their duty to ensure the pursuer's consent was informed as required by Montgomery. The defenders were therefore liable for the consequences of the surgery performed without true informed consent.

Court Disposition

Liability established against defenders for lack of informed consent.

Orders

  • Defenders found liable to the pursuer for damages, quantum agreed between parties.