header-logo header-logo

27 February 2015
Issue: 7642 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Medical practitioner

McCabe v Moore and others[2015] EWHC 260 (QB), [2015] All ER (D) 169 (Feb)

The claimant issued negligence proceedings against the defendant general medical practitioners after suffering a stroke, which had been caused by undiagnosed infective endocarditis. The Queen’s Bench Division held that the third defendant had breached her duty of care by failing to ask the claimant further questions and refer her to hospital immediately, which would have resulted in treatment preventing the stroke. However, no breach of duty had been established against the first and second defendants, as they had not been under a duty to ask further questions, given the claimant’s presentation to them.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans appoint new Chief Technology Officer

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya announces trainee retention rate of 86%

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers welcomes two new Graduate Solicitor Apprentices

NEWS
LexisNexis is delighted to announce the launch of the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2027, celebrating outstanding achievement, innovation and impact across the legal profession
The Legal Services Board (LSB) is to take further enforcement action against the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), setting additional performance targets and ‘intensifying’ its oversight, it has said
Regulators missed several opportunities to intervene in PM Law Group before it collapsed, an independent review by City firm Jenner & Block has found
An employer’s vicarious liability for the alleged torts of an employee cannot be transferred by TUPE, the Court of Appeal has confirmed
Tiered fees of up to £1,500 for Legal Ombudsman (LeO) cases could leave firms with little option but to pay out, lawyers have warned
back-to-top-scroll