Key Facts
- •Claimant suffered spinal cord damage during multiple attempts at epidural anaesthesia before and during bowel surgery.
- •10 attempts were made to insert a trocar, one of which pierced the spinal cord.
- •Claimant's symptoms include reduced power in her right leg, pain, pins and needles, and hip ache.
- •Quantum of claim agreed at £1.3 million.
- •Liability was the main issue in dispute.
- •Informed consent and the reasonableness of the number of attempts were key legal issues.
Legal Principles
Standard of care for medical professionals.
Bolam v Frien Hospital [1957] 1 WLR 582; Bolitho v City and Hackney HA [1998] AC 232
Informed consent – the patient's right to make informed decisions about their treatment.
Montgomery v Lanarkshire [2015] AC 143
Expert evidence – principles governing expert witness testimony.
Ikarian Reefer: National Justice v Prudential Assurance [1993] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 68; Imperial Chemical v Merit Merrell [2018] EWHC 1577
Witness credibility – factors to consider when assessing witness statements.
CNZ v Royal Bath [2023] EWHC 19 (KB); Onassis v Vergottis [1968] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 403
Outcomes
Judgment for the Claimant.
Failure to obtain informed consent for the epidural attempts under general anaesthetic constituted a battery. While the number of attempts was at the outer limit of acceptable practice, it was not found to be negligent.