Advertise Here
Icon

Directory

IconAccounting & Tax
IconActuaries
IconAdministrators
IconAppraisers & Valuers
IconArbitration Services
IconASIB
IconAssessors & Loss Adjusters
IconAssist and Lifestyle Benefits
IconAssociations & Institutes
IconAuditors
IconBBBEE Consulting and Verification Agencies
IconBroker Acquisition Financing
IconBrokers for Brokers
IconBusiness Process Management
IconBusiness Process Outsourcing
IconCall Centre Outsourcing & Sales
IconCompany Secretarial Services
IconCompliance
IconConsumer Protection
IconCorporate Governance
IconCredit Bureaus
IconDebit Order Collection Facilities
IconDefensive Driver Training
IconEducation and Training
IconEmergency Medical Rescue
IconFAIS
IconFire, Storm, Flood Damage Specialists
IconForensic Investigation Services
IconHuman Resources
IconIndustrial Cleaners
IconInformation Technology and Software Partners
IconInsurance Companies
IconLegal
IconLightning Damage & Surge Protection Specialists
IconNiche Insurance Products
IconOmbud
IconOutbound Sales
IconOutsourcing Companies
IconPolicy Administration
IconPremium Financing
IconPublic Loss Adjustors
IconPublications
IconRating Agencies
IconReference Books & Material
IconRegulatory Authorities
IconRisk Finance
IconRisk Management
IconRisk Surveyors
IconSalvage Operators
IconSpecialized Claims Investigations & Assessing
IconSurveys and Research
IconTraining Courses & Workshops
IconUnderwriting Managers
IconVehicle Accident Management
IconVehicle and Household Risk Inspection Services
IconVehicle Tracking
IconWellness Programs
IconWholesale Brokers
IconZZZZZZ
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 »

Rokk3r Insurtech inks partnership with insurance SaaS leader Genasys

Firms will join forces to market innovative insurtech solutions to new target markets around the world   MIAMI, FLA. –  Feb. 18, 2020  – Rokk3r (OTC: ROKK), the multinational company ...
Read More »

  

Hard choices for Budget 2020

Citadel Portfolio Manager Mike van der Westhuizen believes a strong Budget will come down to simple action and hard choices taken now for the long-term benefit of the country. 17 February 2020: “The ...
Read More »

  

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 »

 

More News »

Image

Healthcare »

Image

Investment »

Image

Life »

Image

Retirement »

Advertise Here
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Advertise Here

From The Glossary »

Icon

Selection Against:

See adverse selection.
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.