header-logo header-logo

12 June 2015
Issue: 7656 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Negligence

EXP v Barker [2015] EWHC 1289 (QB), [2015] All ER (D) 12 (Jun)

The claimant suffered a ruptured aneurysm in 2011, she brought a claim in personal injuries against a consultant who had viewed an MRI scan on the claimant in 1999. The claimant had been informed that the brain scan was clear. Following the admission of expert evidence, the court held that a competent practitioner would have concluded that the images in the 1999 MRI scan had shown the presence of an aneurysm, and that the aneurysm that ruptured in 2011 was the same aneurysm as that evidenced by the abnormality in the 1999 images of the MRI scan. The court therefore concluded the issue of liability in favour of the claimant.

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

Fieldfisher—Will Sharp

Fieldfisher—Will Sharp

Fieldfisher boosts structured finance practice with appointment of Will Sharp

gunnercooke—Thomas Bjorn & Peter Rudd-Clarke

gunnercooke—Thomas Bjorn & Peter Rudd-Clarke

gunnercooke grows its life sciences team with new partner hires

Leonard Curtis Legal—Mark Maguire & Kane Jones

Leonard Curtis Legal—Mark Maguire & Kane Jones

Leonard Curtis Legal expands corporate team with twonew appointments

NEWS
The Attorney General, Ellie Reeves KC MP, and Solicitor General, Andy Slaughter KC MP, marked the 25th anniversary of Pro Bono Week by joining lawyers, charities, students and parliamentarians at events celebrating voluntary legal work
An indemnity costs battle with a £20m gap could reopen an important question: what weight should an approved budget carry?
The Environment Agency can prosecute offences beyond environmental legislation where proceedings support its statutory functions, the Divisional Court has confirmed
Should a conviction stand when a later ruling reveals that the law underpinning it was wrong? The answer exposes a clash between finality and justice
Witness evidence can be compromised by AI before a solicitor sees the draft, leaving safeguards focused on authorship incomplete
back-to-top-scroll