Anne Edith Powell v University Hospitals Sussex NHS Foundation Trust
[2023] EWHC 736 (KB)
Jacqueline Beatty v Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust
8 December 2023
[2023] EWHC 3163 (KB)
High Court
A woman lost her leg and sued her surgeon. The question was whether the surgeon should have done an extra scan. The judge decided the surgeon did what a reasonable doctor would have done, even if another doctor might have ordered the extra scan, so the case was dismissed.
Key Facts
- •Ms Beatty suffered a below-knee amputation after a vascular surgeon, Mr Aston, allegedly failed to diagnose an embolism in April 2016.
- •The claim focused solely on Mr Aston's consultation on April 13th, 2016.
- •Ms Beatty had a severe bacterial infection and cellulitis.
- •Initial vascular imaging showed no significant arterial abnormalities.
- •Mr Aston diagnosed vasculitis, while experts later agreed the condition was likely an embolic disease process.
- •The central issue was whether Mr Aston should have ordered a CT angiogram to rule out an embolism.
Legal Principles
Bolam test: A doctor's actions are not negligent if supported by a responsible body of medical opinion.
Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 WLR 583
Even if a responsible body of medical opinion supports a doctor's actions, the court must assess the logic of the reasoning process. Illogical reasoning will lead to rejection of the expert advice.
ARB v IVF Hammersmith Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 2803; [2020] QB 93
Doctors are not required to undertake all conceivable tests; a proper sense of proportion regarding hospital and doctor working conditions is needed.
Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 WLR 583
Outcomes
Claim dismissed.
The court found that Mr Aston's clinical judgment, supported by a reasonable body of medical opinion, did not require a CT angiogram. While a CT angiogram might have been optimal, it wasn't mandatory given the low likelihood of an embolism based on the presented evidence and Mr Aston's reasonable assessment.