ERE v East Suffolk and North Essex NHS Foundation Trust
[2024] EWHC 2569 (KB)
Wilma Agnes Cullen v Dr Ruth Henniker-Major
7 November 2024
[2024] EWHC 2809 (KB)
High Court
A woman sued her doctor for delaying her cancer diagnosis, leading to major surgery. The doctor admitted fault, but argued the woman exaggerated her needs for care. The judge carefully reviewed lots of evidence, including videos, and found the woman was honest about needing a lot of help. The judge awarded her money for past and future care, therapy, and equipment, making sure she wouldn't get paid twice for the same thing.
Key Facts
- •Clinical negligence claim due to negligently delayed laryngeal cancer diagnosis.
- •Liability admitted; quantification of damages and allegations of fundamental dishonesty remained.
- •Claimant required total laryngectomy, now breathes through a stoma and speaks via a valve.
- •Dispute centered on past and future care needs, psychological treatment, and equipment costs.
- •Defendant alleged fundamental dishonesty based on surveillance evidence and medical records.
- •Voluminous evidence including witness testimonies, expert reports, and surveillance footage.
- •Court inspected Claimant's stoma, considered medical records indicating 'self-changing' voice prosthesis.
- •SLT records clarified that 'self-changing' meant assistance from a carer was still required.
Legal Principles
Fundamental dishonesty under Section 57 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015.
Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015
Indemnity principle in Avon County Council v Hooper [1997] 1 WLR 1605.
Avon County Council v Hooper [1997] 1 WLR 1605
Adverse inference in Wisniewski v Central Manchester Health Authority [1998] PIQR P323.
Wisniewski v Central Manchester Health Authority [1998] PIQR P323
Outcomes
Rejected allegations of fundamental dishonesty.
Claimant's evidence consistent with lay witness testimony, expert opinions, and clarified medical records; inconsistencies explained.
Awarded £63,750 for past gratuitous care.
Accepted Claimant's evidence and carer's testimony of 24-hour care need; adjusted for other funding sources.
Awarded £1,285,844 for future care.
Requires 24-hour care; live-in carer model deemed most appropriate; considered expert testimony and practicalities.
Awarded £49,500 for future carers' holiday costs.
Carer to accompany Claimant on holidays; reduced multiplier to reflect eventual cessation of travel.
Awarded £6,000 for future psychological treatment.
Agreed need for therapy; adopted mid-point of expert recommendations considering the long-term impact of communication difficulties.
Awarded £30,712.58 for future equipment costs.
Agreed costs for laryngectomy equipment; allowed claim for text-to-speech software; disallowed claim for iPad.
Invited parties to address double recovery issue in final order.
Risk of double recovery due to existing NHS funding; requires careful consideration to avoid overcompensation.