EconPapers    
Economics at your fingertips  
 

Brady v Southend University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust [2020] EWHC 158: ‘Pure Diagnosis’ Claims and Setting the Professional Standard of Care

Samantha A Schnobel

Medical Law Review, 2021, vol. 29, issue 2, 373-383

Abstract: In Brady v Southend University Hospital NHS Trust, the High Court was asked to consider the applicability of Bolam and Bolitho principles in a so-called ‘pure diagnosis’ claim. The claimant suffered from the long-term effects of an undiagnosed bacterial infection after presenting at the defendant hospital with acute appendicitis. It was argued by claimant’s counsel that where the primary allegation of fault concerns diagnosis, no issues of acceptable practice arise and therefore Bolam and Bolitho do not apply. Rejecting this, the High Court confirmed the applicability of Bolam and Bolitho and found that the defendant hospital had not been negligent. Initially, this result may signal a continued deference towards those in the medical profession, however, it is suggested that an alternative reading evidences a case which lays the groundwork for reconsidering the doctor–patient relationship in the context of treatment and diagnosis actions.

Keywords: Bolam; Bolitho; Breach of duty; Medical profession; Professional negligence; Pure diagnosis (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2021
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/medlaw/fwaa040 (application/pdf)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:oup:medlaw:v:29:y:2021:i:2:p:373-383.

Access Statistics for this article

Medical Law Review is currently edited by Professor Sara Fovargue and Professor Jose Miola

More articles in Medical Law Review from Oxford University Press
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Oxford University Press ().

 
Page updated 2025-03-19
Handle: RePEc:oup:medlaw:v:29:y:2021:i:2:p:373-383.