The View May qxp

Document Sample
The View May qxp Powered By Docstoc
					                                                                                                                   May 2006


       Asbestos                                Barker v Corus (UK) Plc
       Apportionment                           Smith v S Notaro Ltd and another
       Costs                                   Wyatt and Wyatt v Portsmouth Hospital NHS Trust
       Periodical Payments                     YM v Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and others
       Causation                               Blackburn Rovers Football & Athletic Club v Avon Insurance Plc and others
       Healthcare funding                      R (Ann Marie Rogers) v Swindon NHS Primary Care Trust & Secretary of state for Health
       Medical treatment                       R (Watts) v Bedford Primary Care Trust and another
       Submission of no case to answer         Graham v Chorley Borough Council
       Consumer Law                            Tesco Stores and another v Pollard
       Quantum                                 Simmons v Waddoups (leg fracture)
                                               Clarke v Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (wrist)
                                               Hayward v Yuasa Battery Ltd (eye)
                                               K v Dr B and Dr W (breast cancer)

News watch                                     Vioxx                                         reports and records were 'reasonable,
                                                                                             proportionate and, therefore, fully recoverable'
                                               On 21 April, a Texan state jury reached       under CPR 45.10(2). Further details will
RTA referral fees                              the verdict that Merck, the distributors of   follow in next month's issue of The View.
                                               Vioxx, were liable for the heart attack
The Law Society is considering whether         suffered by Leonel Garza senior and           Mental health review
to review the position on referral fees        must compensate his family for mental
following a report by the Motor Accident       anguish and personal loss.                    The consultation on proposed amendments
Relief Society that insurers are making a                                                    to the Mental Health Act 1993 will end on 6
double profit by charging consumers for        Veteran claim                                 June. The proposals include the abolishing
unnecessary legal expenses insurance                                                         of the four categories of mental disorder
whilst also charging solicitors referral       900 veterans who served in the South          and replacing them with a new and
fees for cases. APIL called for referral       Pacific in the 1950s and 1960s are            simplified definition of mental disorder and
fees to be totally transparent.                seeking advice on a no win, no fee basis      the strengthening of the Mental Health
                                               in respect of a potential group litigation    Review Tribunal.
Drug trial payout                              case against the Ministry of Defence,
                                               claiming that the MoD knowingly               London bombings compensation fund
Four of the six men who became seriously       exposed them to radiation which led to
ill after taking part in the trials of drug    their illnesses. Legal aid funding was        A further £2.5m has been added to the fund
TGN1412 have received interim payments         recently withdrawn.                           to compensate the victims of the London
of £10,000 each. The manufacturer,                                                           bombings in July 2005 but campaigners
TeGenero, has not pursued its initial          Predictable fees                              complain that when the fund is divided
insistence on a clause waiving the men's                                                     between over 50 victims and their families,
rights to bring proceedings. One man           In Wollard v Fowler, the Court of Appeal      this will not even cover loss of earnings and
remains in hospital and is likely to undergo   has agreed that the fees charged by           other damages.
the amputation of three fingers.               Mobile Doctors for supplying medical
Asbestos - apportionment; material           by assessing the period of time for          and the apportionment of damages in
contribution to risk of harm                 which the claimant was exposed, the          favour of N was wrong.
                                             intensity of the exposure or the type of
Barker v Corus (UK) Plc; Murray v            asbestos to which the claimant was           The judge had correctly found there to
British Shipbuilders (Hydrodynamics)         exposed.                                     be a breach of the 1992 Regulations
Ltd; Paterson v Smiths Dock Ltd [2006]                                                    as the employee had to be trained not
UKHL 20                                      The House allowed the Barker appeal          to walk on uneven surfaces and to be
House of Lords - Lords Hoffmann,             to the extent that it set aside the award    aware of the risks. The breach was not
Scott, Rodger and Walker and                 of damages and referred the case             just technical but it did concern lack of
Baroness Hale                                back to the High Court to determine          training in an area that really was
3 May 2006                                   damages by way of the proportion of          common sense. The judge did not give
                                             risk attributable to the breach by           reasons as to why he apportioned
This was a conjoined appeal by the           Corus. The House urged the parties to        damages in favour of N and this
defendant employers against findings         devise a method as to how this might         apportionment did not reflect the
of liability by the Court of Appeal for      be determined.                               justice of the case. The Court reversed
negligent exposure of the claimants to                                                    the apportionment in favour of the
asbestos dust. The claimants had all         APIL has criticised the decision             employer. The claimant was awarded
been exposed to asbestos by more             arguing that claimants may now only          £16,000 after the deduction for
than one employer during their               receive a fraction of the damages they       contributory negligence, based on an
careers. The employers submitted that        would have been entitled to as so            award of £10,000 for PSLA at full
they should be severally liable only         many employers go out of business            liability.
according to the share of the risk           before the disease becomes apparent.
created by their breach of duty. In          Claimant solicitors and unions are           Simon Freeland QC for the appellant
Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral                calling for an amendment to the              employer
Services Ltd [2002] it was held that a       Compensation Bill which would provide        Theodore Huckle for the respondent
worker who had contracted                    that where one or more employers are
mesothelioma following wrongful              in breach of duty to a person suffering
exposure by more than one employer           from mesothelioma, they would be             Costs - legal advice and funding;
could succeed against any of them            jointly and severally liable.                costs protection
notwithstanding that he could not
prove which exposure had caused the          The effect of proportionate damages is       Wyatt and Wyatt v Portsmouth
disease; the court's remedy for an           that claimants will have to consider         Hospital NHS Trust [2006] EWCA
unjust situation. These appeals raised       joining each and every defendant to          Civ 529
two undecided issues: what are the           proceedings to ensure full recovery.         Court of Appeal - Laws, Wall and
limits of the Fairchild exception and        Complications may arise as to                Lloyd LJJ
what is the extent of the liability?         identification of parties, notification to   3 May 2006
                                             insurers and the existence of
Mr Barker had been negligently               contractual indemnities.                     The claimant parents were unsuccessful
exposed to asbestos by two                                                                in an application for permission to
companies but had also been                  Jeremy Stuart-Smith QC, Charles              appeal a decision concerning their
responsible for a significant period of      Feeny and Jayne La Grua for the              daughter and in an appeal against
exposure when he was self-employed.          employers                                    earlier decisions. They were funded by
Mr Patterson had been negligently            David Allan QC and Peter Cowan for           the Legal Services Commission.
exposed by four employers, two of            Barker and Murray                            Although the amount eventually
which were now insolvent, and Mr             Allan Gore QC and Nigel Lewers for           determined by the Court as payable by
Murray had been negligently exposed          Patterson                                    the claimants was nil, the Court held
by numerous employers, some of                                                            that a costs order could be made
which were insolvent.                                                                     against publicly-funded litigants for the
                                             Apportionment - employer's duties;           purpose of a reference to a costs
In a significant claw back from              justice                                      judge under s11(1) of the Access to
Fairchild, their Lordships held that it                                                   Justice Act 1999. The NHS trust had
was possible to determine the share of       Smith v S Notaro Ltd and another             argued that it needed a costs order as
damage that could be attributed to a         [2006]                                       a prerequisite for an application that
particular defendant and that                Court of Appeal - Ward, Rix and Gage         the commission should pay its
attributing liability in accordance with     LJJ                                          considerable costs of the proceedings.
the relative degree of contribution to       5 May 2006
the chance of the disease being                                                           Jeremy Hyam for the claimants
contracted would be fair.                    The claimant had been employed to            David Lock for the defendant
                                             deliver plumbing goods to a building
Although the Fairchild exception could       site occupied by building contractors
operate even if all the potential causes     (N) and whilst carrying radiators over a     Periodical payments - future loss;
of damage were not tortious, it was          walkway made from planks of wood he          clinical negligence
essential that the impossibility of          tripped and injured his back. N joined
proving that the defendant caused the        the employer as Part 20 defendant. All       YM (a child & patient by her mother &
damage arose out of the existence of         three parties were held liable. The          litigation friend EH) v (1)
another potentially causative agent          walkway was not safe and N was               Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS
that operated in the same way,               found to be in breach of the                 Foundation Trust (2) Secretary of State
distinguishing Wiltshire v Essex Area        Construction (Health, Safety and             for Health; Kanu (a patient suing by his
Health Authority [1998].                     Welfare) Regulations 1996; the               father & litigation friend) v (1) King's
                                             claimant had been contributorily             College Hospital Trust (2) Secretary
The issue of apportionment was dealt         negligent; the employer had failed to        of State for Health [2006] EWHC 820
with on the basis that the creation of a     give the claimant advice and                 (QB)
material risk of injury was sufficient to    training and had breached its duty           QBD - Forbes J
found liability, given that mesothelioma     under the manual Handling Operations         12 April 2006
is an indivisible injury, and therefore it   Regulations 1992. The employer
should be possible to quantify the           appealed against a finding that it must      The courts approval was sought in
damage which each defendant should           indemnify the contractor as to two           respect of agreed settlements in these
be regarded as having caused. The            thirds of the damages on the grounds         two clinical negligence actions, each
courts should attribute liability            that, if it had breached the 1992            order providing for periodical payments
according to the probabilities, possibly     Regulations, it was a technical breach       to be made in respect of future

pecuniary loss. The court had to satisfy    total disablement within the terms of        the Secretary of State for Health
itself that the continuity of the           the policy.
periodical payments was reasonably                                                       Medical treatment - reimbursement
secure (s2(3) Damages Act 1996). At         Stephen Cogley for the claimant              of costs; whether refusal justified
the time of the earlier hearings it was     Jeremy Stuart-Smith QC and David
not possible to answer the question. As     Turner for the defendant                     R (Watts) v Bedford Primary Care
things then stood, neither claimant                                                      Trust and another [Case C-372/04]
would have had a right of recourse                                                       European Court of Justice - President
directly against the NHS Litigation         Healthcare funding - Herceptin;              Skouris, Judges Jann, Timmermans,
Authority for the purpose of                rationality of policy                        Rosas, Schintgen, Colneric, Lenaerts,
enforcement of the terms of the order                                                    Klucka, Lohmus, Levits and O Caoimh
in the event of the NHS trust ceasing       R (on the application of Ann Marie           16 May 2006
to exist. Arrangements had now been         Rogers) v Swindon NHS Primary Care
put in place so that, subject to            Trust & Secretary of State for Health        NHS patients may be able to shop
conditions, the NHSLA had agreed to         [2006]                                       around and obtain quicker treatment
be named as the source of periodical        Court of Appeal - Sir Anthony Clarke         elsewhere in the EU following the
payments and to be made legally             MR, Brooke and Buxton LJJ                    decision of the European Court of
responsible for such payments to the        4 May 2006                                   Justice that a patient facing 'undue
claimants. The court was satisfied that                                                  delay' in obtaining treatment on the
the continuity of periodical payments       Individual demands for the best              NHS was entitled to be refunded if
was secure in each case and approved        healthcare available and the limited         they chose to have the operation
the order for use in these cases and in     resources of the NHS clashed in this         performed elsewhere in the EU.
other similar cases.                        test case concerning the primary care
                                            trust's policy not to fund the breast        A resident of an EC member state with
Adrian Whitfield QC, Robin                  cancer drug Herceptin to all women           a free national health service is entitled
Oppenheim, Susan Rodway QC and              prescribed it for early stage breast         to be reimbursed for treatment in
Timothy Petts for the claimants             cancer. The medical evidence was that        another member state which had or
Michael De Navarro QC, Elisabeth            Mrs Rodgers had a 25% chance of              should have been authorised by the
Laing and Paul Rees QC for the              remaining free of breast cancer after        resident state's health service. The
defendants                                  10 years and a 57% chance of dying           decision on authorisation had to be
                                            within that period. She had commenced        based on the patient's state of health.
                                            a course of Herceptin on the advice of       A refusal could not be based solely on
Causation - football; permanent             her consultant for which she was             the existence of waiting lists.
total disability                            paying privately but she could not
                                            afford to pay for the whole course. The      Mrs Watts had been refused an E112
Blackburn Rovers Football & Athletic        PCT was able to fund Herceptin for           certificate for hip replacement surgery
Club v Avon Insurance Plc and others        eligible patients to whom it had been        in France on the ground that her case
[2006] EWHC 840 (QB)                        prescribed but its policy was to refuse      was routine and she could receive
QBD - Dobbs J                               to do so unless there were exceptional       treatment in a local hospital without
12 April 2006                               personal or clinical circumstances. The      undue delay and within the 12 month
                                            PCT maintained that its decision had         in-patient target waiting time. She went
The club made a claim under a               nothing to do with cost considerations.      ahead with the operation in France and
personal accident policy underwritten       Mrs Rodgers argued that the PCT's            brought proceedings for judicial review
by the defendant insurers in respect of     policy was irrational and sought judicial    and reimbursement of the £4,000 cost
a player who suffered an injury whilst      review of the decision to refuse funding     of the operation on her return. She
training and had to retire 21 months        for treatment.                               relied on Article 49 of the EC Treaty
later as he was unable to gain back his                                                  and Article 22 of EC Regulation
fitness. The club had to prove that it      The Court held that the policy to            1408/71. The NHS argued that if
came within the policy which provided       withhold funding for treatment could         patients were guaranteed
cover in the event that a player            technically be rational if the decision      reimbursement of medical costs when
sustained bodily injury that solely and     maker was able to, and did, envisage         they opted for treatment abroad it
independently of any other cause had        circumstances which might be                 would seriously undermine the NHS
resulted in total permanent disability      considered to be exceptional. The            and divert resources to pay for less
within 24 months of the accident. The       policy would otherwise be an effective       urgent treatment for those willing to
club claimed that the player's              refusal of treatment. In this situation      travel abroad, discriminating against
retirement was the result of the injury     however the Court could not see any          those who could not afford to, or wish
and there was total disablement within      rational basis for distinguishing            to, travel to another EU country for
the requisite period. The insurers          between eligible patients whether they       treatment.
argued that the player was suffering        should or should not receive funding.
from degenerative disc disease and          The only reasonable approach to              The ECJ held that the PCT would have
that, but for the disease, he would not     deciding whether the policy was              to establish that the waiting time did
have suffered back pain following the       irrational, given that the PCT had           not exceed a period which was
accident, that he had continued playing     decided to fund some patients and            acceptable on the basis of an objective
after the date of the accident and had      acknowledged that cost was irrelevant,       medical assessment of the patient's
suffered a further disabling injury         was to focus on the patient's clinical       needs. Article 49, which concerned
before retirement.                          needs and to fund patients who had           the prohibition of restrictions on the
                                            been prescribed Herceptin by their           freedom of those who provided
The court agreed that the evidence did      doctors. As few patients satisfied the       services, was applicable. The
not support a finding that the incident     criteria to qualify for the eligible group   restrictions imposed by the NHS could
alone was so serious that it would          the floodgates arguments was not             not be justified unless treatment could
have caused the player to suffer            accepted.                                    be provided without undue delay and it
permanent total disablement                                                              was not appropriate to conclude that
independently of degenerative disc          The policy was irrational and unlawful       Mrs Watts would not suffer undue
disease. In the opinion of the medical      and the appeal was allowed.                  delay by reference to NHS waiting
experts degenerative disc disease was                                                    lists. Any system of prior authorisation
the, or a, cause of the player's            David Pannick QC and Ian Wise for            had to be based on objective and
disablement. The claim failed because       the applicant                                non-discriminatory criteria which were
the club was unable to demonstrate          Philip Havers QC and Matthew Barnes          made known to the public. The UK
that the injury sustained whilst training   for the PCT                                  courts must now decide whether the
had independently caused permanent          Alison Foster QC and Eleanor Grey for        waiting time Mrs Watts faced was

'undue delay' and whether she should         The failure to put the defendant to its        mother's account of the accident and
be reimbursed.                               election means that the unsuccessful           held the manufacturer and Tesco liable
                                             defendant is able to call its evidence         under s3(1) of the Consumer Protection
Submission of no case to answer -            and have a second bite at the cherry.          Act 1987 as the cap was defective and
defective premises; defendant not            The courts have long considered                not up to the standard the consumer
put to its election                          submissions of no case to answer 'a            was entitled to expect - the British
                                             most inconvenient procedure'                   Standard. The expert evidence was that
Graham v Chorley Borough Council             (Alexander v Rayson [1936]). They are          the bottle could be opened by torque of
[2006] EWCA Civ 92                           not made under any particular authority        between 10-18 in/lb whereas the British
Court of Appeal - Brooke, Rix and            granted by the CPR and there is no             Standard required torque of 33 in/lb.
Maurice Kay LJJ                              guidance within the CPR as to the              The defendants appealed.
21 February 2006                             making of such a submission or the test
                                             to be applied. The appeal courts have          Although the tenor of the judgment
The claimant alleged that she had            consistently confirmed that a failure to       suggests that it was not wholly
tripped over a raised flagstone in a path    put a defendant to its election after a        convinced that the accident happened
at the rear of her garden and claimed        submission of no case to answer was a          as the mother alleged, the Court of
damages against the defendant landlord       course of action which required                Appeal did not interfere with the judge's
on the basis that it had failed to           'considerable caution' and have given          findings of fact but instead held that it
discharge its duty under the Defective       guidance that a judge trying a civil case      was not possible to read into s3 of the
Premises Act 1972. She claimed that          without a jury should rarely, if ever,         1987 Act an objective benchmark as to
she had complained about the flagstone       entertain a submission of no case to           what constituted a safe product when
twice before but the defendant had no        answer without putting the defendant to        consumers were unlikely to be aware
record of any complaints. Her                its election.                                  what the standard was or even of its
medical records made reference to                                                           existence. The public were likely to
numerous tripping incidents which            A judge could be entitled to hear a            expect that the bottle would be more
occurred when the claimant was playing       submission of no case to answer                difficult to open than an ordinary screw
with her puppy. At half time, the            without putting the defendant to its           top bottle. In fact the bottle was more
defendant's counsel submitted there          election if the evidence was so weak           difficult to open, not as difficult as might
was no case to answer and the judge          that the claimant was bound to fail or         have been expected under the British
agreed, dismissing the claim. The            some flaw of fact or law emerges such          Standards, but more difficult nonethe-
claimant's explanations were 'simply not     that it becomes obvious that the claim         less. There was accordingly no breach
good enough to satisfy the court as to       will fail. The effect would be as though       of s3.
how the accident occurred'. The              an application for summary judgment
claimant appealed on the grounds that        had been made earlier in the                   This decision is likely to cause
there had been a serious procedural          proceedings, although the threshold for        practitioners difficulty in that the test
irregularity in that the defendant was not   the claimant to pass will be lower than        applied would appear to be both
put to its election of whether or not to     that applied for summary judgment              subjective and case specific.
call evidence of its own before the          under CPR 24. If the judge is to
hearing of the submission of no case to      proceed in this manner then the test to        Timothy Briden for the claimant
answer, and that the judge had applied       apply is whether the claimant has 'no          John Norman QC for the defendants
the wrong standard of proof.                 real prospect of success' on its claim.        Neil Block QC for the cross appellant
                                             The judge should ask himself whether
The Court of Appeal, somewhat wearily,       the claimant has advanced a prima
pointed to four earlier decisions in which   facie case which requirs an explanation        Quantum
it had given guidance as to the rare         from the defendant. If the defendant is
circumstances in which it might be           put to its election, the test will be on the
appropriate for a judge to hear a            balance of probabilities.                      Leg fracture
submission of no case to answer
without putting the defendant to its         David Pilling for the claimant                 Simmons v Waddoups [2006]
election (Bentley v Jones Harris [2001],     Timothy Edge for the defendant                 Out of court settlement
Boyce v Wyatt Engineering [2001] Miller                                                     12 April 2006
v Cowley [2002] and Benham Ltd v
Kythira Investments Ltd [2003]).             Consumer law - child proof bottles;            The 20-year-old claimant suffered an
                                             meaning of defect                              injury to his left leg whilst playing
The evidence which the defendant had                                                        football and was kicked from behind. In
intended to call was from the doctor         Tesco Stores and another v Pollard (a          an action against the defendant, the
who had filled out a note in the medical     minor by his litigation friend W Davey)        claimant maintained that they were both
records relating to an accident with the     and Lorraine Pollard (cross appellant)         off the ball at the time and the
puppy and a council officer who dealt        [2006] EWCA Civ 393                            defendant's actions were deliberate and
with complaints from the public. The         Court of Appeal - Laws and Wilson LJJ          negligent. Liability was admitted.
Court considered that, had the               and Sir Paul Kennedy
defendant been put to its election and       12 April 2006                                  The claimant suffered a transverse
decided not to call these witness in the                                                    fracture to the tibia and fibula of his left
event its submission was unsuccessful,       The claimant was 13 months old when            leg which was repaired by the insertion
adverse inferences could have been           he ingested dishwasher powder from a           of intramedullary nails and locking bolts.
drawn which would have helped the            plastic bottle and became seriously ill.       He was unable to work for six weeks
claimant - in particular, the council did    The bottle had been manufactured by            and then only able to perform light
not keep written records of complaints       the second defendant. It was bought            duties for another six weeks. He
and so could not prove that the claimant     from the first defendant and contained         regained full movement within two years
had not made complaints as alleged.          Tesco's own brand powder. The bottle           but experienced minor sensitivity in the
The cross-examination of the witnesses       cap was a child resistant closure cap          area of the metalwork. There was a
might well have strengthened the             (CRC) but the claimant argued that it          chance the metalwork would have to be
claimant's case. There had been a            was defective and easier to open than it       removed.
procedural irregularity. Judgment was        should have been. The defendants
dismissed and the matter was directed        joined the child's mother to the               Out of court settlement: £13,000
to be retried before a different judge.      proceedings on the basis that she had          including £9,500 for PSLA and £1,500
                                             left the bottle in a place where the child     for future medical costs.
The risk to the defendant of submitting      could see and reach it (on a kitchen
no case to answer is that if unsuccessful    surface) and had not screwed the cap
it will not be able to call any evidence.    on properly. The judge accepted the

Wrist                                         to a consultant surgeon. Histology
                                              reported a result of which a grade II
Clarke v Royal Borough of Kensington          infiltrating duct carcinoma. The claimant
& Chelsea [2006]                              alleged that the GPs were negligent in
Brentford County Court - DJ Plaskow           that they failed to refer her for triple
6 April 2006                                  testing which would have confirmed the
                                              diagnosis and an earlier diagnosis
The claimant was 48 years old when he         would have avoided the need for pre
tripped over a defective paving stone         and post operative chemotherapy.
and suffered a fracture of the scaphoid       Surgery would have had a better
bone in his right wrist.                      cosmetic outcome and reconstructive
                                              surgery would not have been required.
Liability was disputed by the council but     Liability was admitted.
the court held it was unable to prove
that its policy of carrying out inspections   The claimant had a pre operative
every six months was adequate, or that        course of chemotherapy followed by a
inspections which had been scheduled          wide local excision surgery and level III
had in fact been carried out, and found       axillary node dissection. She then had
the council liable under s41 of the           four courses of chemotherapy over a
Highways Act 1980.                            period of three months and received
                                              radiotherapy. She suffered sickness and
The claimant's wrist was immobilised          hair loss. There was a poor cosmetic
with a plaster cast and sling. He needed      outcome and breast reconstruction
physiotherapy. His grip was significantly     surgery was advised. The risk of
reduced and he regularly suffered sharp       recurrence or secondary cancer was
pain in the wrist. His symptoms would         said to be the same as it was had the
continue indefinitely and pre-existing        diagnosis been made in 1996.
degenerative changes were accelerated
by 10-15 years.                               Out of court settlement: £100,000
                                              including £45,000 for PSLA and
Award: £8,210 including £8,000 for            £25,000 for Smith v Manchester award.
                                              Nageena Khaliquee for the claimant
Heidi Knight for the defendant
                                              Interesting reading
                                              DDJ Martin Iller considers CPR 6.5(6)
Hayward v Yuasa Battery Ltd [2006]            (service of claim forms) and the effect of
Court assessment - DDJ Mackay                 the Court of Appeal's decision in Collier
28 October 2005                               v Williams [2006] in the Personal Injury
                                              Law Journal 44, pages 23-24.
The claimant failed to establish liability
in a claim for damages for exposure to        The meaning of 'household' in s1(3)9b)
lead oxide dust but the court went on to      Fatal Accidents Act 1976 is examined
assess the damages that would have            by Michael Imperato in the Solicitors
been appropriate had the claim                Journal Vol. 150 No. 19 pages 624-625.

The claimant was 35 years old when
fine particles of lead oxide dust passed
into his eyes whilst he was vacuuming
his workstation. His right eye was more
affected than the left. He felt immediate
pain and his eyes were irrigated at
hospital. He alleged breach of statutory
duty in that the employer failed to
provide him with protective clothing. He
suffered eye redness, discomfort,
dizziness and headaches for several
days but made a full recovery.

Assessment: £650 for PSLA.

Breast cancer

K v Dr B and Dr W [2005]
                                                                                           Please contact Jason Rowley at the address below
Out of court settlement                                                                    if you wish to discuss these or any other legal
25 November 2005                                                                           matters.
                                                                                               Jason Rowley             City office
The claimant's GPs failed to diagnose                                                          Managing Partner         Asia House
                                                                                               Vizards Wyeth            31-33 Lime Street
breast cancer in 1996 when the                                                                 Riverbridge House        London EC3M 7HT
claimant was aged 39. The claimant                                                             Anchor Boulevard
was not referred for any further                                                               Crossways
examinations after a mammography                                                               Kent DA2 6SL
reported no focal lesions but the lump
she had discovered was still present. In                                                       Tel:   020 7400 9999
                                                                                               Fax: 020 7400 9990
1998 she began to experience severe                                                            email:
pain in her breast and was then referred


Shared By:
liaoguiguo liaoguiguo http://