Hotson V E Berkshire Ha Notes
This is a short sample from our Medical Law Notes collection which contains 294 pages of notes in total. If you find this useful you might like to consider purchasing our Medical Law Notes.
| Pages In Full Document | 4 |
| Category: | Law Notes |
| Original Document File Type: | Word (Docx) (Conversion to PDF is available post purchase if required) |
| Price: | Part of a package Medical Law Notes containing 74 other documents which retails for £24.99. |
The original file is a 'Word (Docx)' whilst this sample is a 'PDF' representation of said file. This means that the formatting here may have errors. The original document you'll receive on purchase should have more polished formatting.
Hotson V E Berkshire Ha Revision
The following is a plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Medical Law Notes. This text version has had its formatting removed so pay attention to its contents alone rather than its presentation. The version you download will have its original formatting intact and so will be much prettier to look at. Hotson v E Berkshire HA [1987] AC 750 House of Lords Facts H fell out a tree, injuring his leg. When he went to hospital, the doctor negligently failed to diagnose the problem correctly, with the result that H had to have his leg amputated. Had H had prompt treatment, he would have had a 25% chance of saving the leg, but still a 75%
chance of losing it. Issue Loss of chance Held Lord Bridge • The failure of the blood supply to the epiphysis which caused the avascular necrosis could itself only have been caused in one of two ways: o either the injury sustained in the fall caused the rupture of such a high proportion o or the blood vessels remaining intact were sufficient to keep the epiphysis alive but were subsequently occluded by pressure within the joint caused by haematoma • In some cases, perhaps particularly medical negligence cases, causation may be so shrouded in mystery that the court can only measure statistical chances. o On the evidence there was a clear conflict as to what had caused the avascular necrosis. The authority's evidence was that the sole cause was the original traumatic injury to the hip. The plaintiff's evidence, at its highest, was that the delay in treatment was a material contributory cause. o This was a conflict, like any other about some relevant past event, which the judge could not avoid resolving on a balance of probabilities. Unless the plaintiff proved on a balance of probabilities that the delayed treatment was at least a material contributory cause of the avascular necrosis he failed on the issue of causation and no question of quantification could arise. But the judge's findings of fact are unmistakably to the effect that on a balance of probabilities the injury caused by the plaintiff's fall left insufficient blood vessels intact to keep the epiphysis alive. • This amounts to a finding of fact that the fall was the sole cause of the avascular necrosis.
• Would it be ever attractive to award for a loss of chance? o There is a superficially attractive analogy between the principle applied in such cases as Chaplin v Hicks and the principle of awarding damages for the lost chance of avoiding personal injury or for the lost chance of a better medical result which might have been achieved by prompt diagnosis and correct treatment. o I think there are formidable difficulties in the way of accepting the analogy.
****************************End Of Sample*****************************
Buy the full version of these notes and essays alongside much more in our Medical Law Notes.