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

NLJ Career Profile: Hugo Plowman, Mishcon de Reya

NLJ Career Profile: Hugo Plowman, Mishcon de Reya

From global fraud cases to fishing off-grid, Mishcon de Reya’s chair of dispute resolution Hugo Plowman discusses mentors, management switching off

Maguire Family Law—Jennifer Hudec, Ciara Florey, Alice Ferguson & Ruth Wynn

Maguire Family Law—Jennifer Hudec, Ciara Florey, Alice Ferguson & Ruth Wynn

Maguire Family Law announces partner promotion and new hires amid a record year for enquiries

Switalskis—Rebecca Parry & Hannah Gamble

Switalskis—Rebecca Parry & Hannah Gamble

Switalskis wills and probate team extends reach with two appointments

NEWS
Restrictions on workplace non-disclosure agreements could make settlements slower, more complex and more expensive when reforms expected in 2027 take effect
Private prosecutors face closer scrutiny under Crown Prosecution Service guidance designed to strengthen accountability and consistency when intervention is requested
Foreign states cannot necessarily claim immunity for cyber operations launched abroad against computers in Britain, following a divided Supreme Court ruling
Defendants who make unsupported complaints about their lawyers risk losing legal aid while confiscation proceedings continue without representation
Lawyers advising Russian clients face different sanctions restrictions across the UK, EU and US, despite their shared objective of increasing pressure on Russia
back-to-top-scroll