Advertise Here
Icon

Directory

IconAccounting & Tax
IconAccreditation Bodies
IconActuaries
IconAssociations and Institutes
IconAuditors
IconBBBEE Consulting and Verification Agencies
IconBusiness Process Management
IconBusiness Process Outsourcing
IconCompany Secretarial Services
IconCompare Medical Scheme Benefits
IconCompliance
IconConsumer Protection
IconCorporate Governance
IconCredit Bureaus
IconDebit Order Collection Facilities
IconEducation and Training
IconEmergency Medical Rescue
IconExpatriate Cover
IconFAIS
IconHealthcare Consultants
IconHuman Resources
IconInformation Technology and Software Partners
IconLegal
IconManaged Healthcare Service Providers
IconMedical Aid Administrators
IconMedical Aid Schemes
IconMedical Schemes Trustees Liability Insurance
IconMedical Service Providers
IconOmbud
IconPolicy Administration
IconPublications
IconRegulatory Authorities
IconSurveys & Research
IconTraining Courses & Workshops
IconWellness Programs
Image
  Subscribe To »

Negligent failure to perform caesarean section in time (UK)

Published

2020

Thu

06

Feb

 

The claimant, suing the UK National Health Service, had a medical history of having undergone two caesarean sections and a tear to her womb. Her fourth pregnancy was therefore regarded as “high risk” and her treatment plan provided for an elective caesarean section. She brought a claim against the hospital on the grounds of alleged negligence on the part of the hospital staff on the basis that they failed to perform a caesarean section timeously.

The claimant presented at the hospital at 2:30am on 11 December 2014 in the latent stage of labour. She was experiencing contractions but her cervix had not dilated by more than 4cm. She was assessed by the hospital staff at 2:40am, 4:10am, 5:35am and 7:05am. The decision to perform a caesarean section was taken after the last assessment and she gave birth to a baby boy at 8:36am. Shortly thereafter, it was discovered that the claimant suffered a tear to the posterior wall of her uterus which could not be repaired, and a hysterectomy was performed.

The trial court was faced with deciding whether a decision should have been made to perform a caesarean section at 4:10am. The trial judge found in favour of the claimant and awarded damages against the defendant. The defendant appealed the decision of the trial court on various grounds.

One of the grounds of appeal was that the trial judge failed to consider the balancing factors that a doctor would have to take into account when prioritising patients’ needs. The appeal court stated that a balance has to be struck between the seriousness and urgency of a patient’s condition in circumstances where there are no other conflicting factors which will enable the hospital staff to act swiftly in attending to the patient, and the needs of a patient which must be deprioritised to allow the hospital staff to attend to other demands in a busy labour ward, as a matter of priority.

The defendant’s Emergency Caesarean Section Guidelines state that the degree of promptness with which an emergency caesarean section ought to be carried out must take into consideration other pregnancies that might be exposed to undue risk. Put differently, there may be cases where the risk to the patient is low which justifies postponement of treatment of that patient to allow hospital staff to attend to other patients in a busy labour ward. Where the risk is significant and increasing, one must consider the competing considerations more closely to determine which patient must be prioritised.

The hospital records did not indicate that there were any other emergencies that required attention at 4:10am. The defendant’s expert’s evidence that there were competing demands which had arisen at the time were general assumptions which were irrelevant to the period in question. The defendant’s expert’s evidence did not apply to the facts of this case and were merely generalised comments regarding labour wards.

As such, the defendant did not present any evidence to suggest that there were competing priorities that required attention when the claimant was examined at 4:10am and at which time a caesarean section should have been performed. This was confirmed by the senior registrar of the hospital in her witness statement, which made no reference to such factors.

The appeal court was therefore in agreement with the findings of the trial court that the claimant was experiencing contractions from 2:32am and that the contractions had become more intense. It was apparent by 4:10am that the contractions were frequent and the claimant in fact expressed that she was in severe pain. The appeal court furthermore stated that the claimant was, in any event, to undergo a caesarean section in terms of her treatment plan.

As such, failure on the part of the hospital staff to perform the caesarean section at 4:10am amounted to a breach of duty in circumstances where there were no other competing priorities which the hospital staff were faced with.

It is apparent from the judgment that where a witness provides evidence which is speculative, and it is clear that the witness has no knowledge of the specific facts and circumstances that prevailed, such evidence will not be given any weight by a court.

 

The case is Morrison v Liverpool Women’s NHS Foundation Trust [2020] EWHC 91 (QB).

 
Source: Norton Rose Fulbright South Africa Inc
 
« Back to previous page Print this page » |
 

Breaking News »

Sluggish adoption of DebiCheck is a cause for concern

Stellenbosch, 17 February 2020: In the face of rising debit order abuse, payment innovator Fintec calls on South African businesses to migrate their existing debit order collection facilities to DebiCheck. Also ...
Read More »

  

Global insurance M&A at a four-year high

Deals up in Europe, APAC and Middle East & Africa year-on-year, down slightly in the Americas Transaction volumes buoyed by standout H1 2019; all regions except Middle East & Africa fell ...
Read More »

  

Coronavirus and its effects on international trade and insurance

The deadly novel coronavirus outbreak (2019-CoV) has resulted in passenger and cargo ships being quarantined around the world, partial and complete travel bans to parts of China and shipping and airlines being ...
Read More »

  

Euler Hermes Global Insolvency Index: Insolvencies expected to rise by 4% in South Africa

The upward trend in business insolvencies continued in 2019 for the third time in a row: +9% year on year, according to Euler Hermes Global Insolvency Index, which covers 44 countries that account for 87% of global ...
Read More »

 

More News »

Image

Investment »

Image

Life »

Image

Retirement »

Image

Short-term »

Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Advertise Here

From The Glossary »

Icon

Insurable Interest:

A long-standing principle enshrined in life insurance law is that the person taking out or effecting a life insurance policy should have an "insurable interest" in the person whose life is to be insured. This principle has a long history and was first introduced in England to counter the practice of gambling - mainly by taking out policies on the lives of prominent persons such as a prime minister, with whom the policyholder had no connection whatever ...
More Definitions »

 

Advertise

 

eZine

 

Contact IG

 

Media Pack

 

RSS Feeds

By using this website you agree to the Terms of Use.
Copyright © Insurance Gateway (Pty) Ltd 2004 - 2020. All Rights Reserved.