SD AGAINST GRAMPIAN HEALTH BOARD [2022] ScotCS CSOH_63 (07 September 2022)

SD AGAINST GRAMPIAN HEALTH BOARD [2022] ScotCS CSOH_63 (07 September 2022)

The court found that the midwives and doctors did not breach their duty of care. Decisions regarding Prostin administration, monitoring, and transfer to labour ward were made in accordance with guidelines, clinical judgment, and ward round discussions. No actionable failure was established. Causation was not proven, as the evidence did not show that earlier intervention would have prevented LD's injury.

Citation
[2022] ScotCS CSOH_63
Parties
Pursuer: SD, as legal representative of her son LD; Defender: Grampian Health Board, known as NHS Grampian
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
07 September 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Medical Negligence / Judgment After Proof (liability and Causation Only)
Outcome
claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Standard of Care, Causation, Breach of Duty, Induction of Labour, CTG Interpretation, Midwifery Practice, Obstetric Management
Medical Negligence Personal Injury Tort Standard of Care Causation Breach of Duty Induction of Labour CTG Interpretation +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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SD, as legal representative of her son LD

Pursuer

Grampian Health Board, known as NHS Grampian

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil Medical Negligence / Judgment After Proof (liability and Causation Only)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether midwives and doctors breached duty of care during induction of labour
  2. 2 Whether alleged breaches caused LD's injury (cerebral palsy)

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the midwives and doctors did not breach their duty of care. Decisions regarding Prostin administration, monitoring, and transfer to labour ward were made in accordance with guidelines, clinical judgment, and ward round discussions. No actionable failure was established. Causation was not proven, as the evidence did not show that earlier intervention would have prevented LD's injury.

Court Disposition

claim dismissed