IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/medlaw/v29y2021i2p373-383..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Samantha A Schnobel

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Samantha A Schnobel, 2021. "Brady v Southend University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust [2020] EWHC 158: ‘Pure Diagnosis’ Claims and Setting the Professional Standard of Care," Medical Law Review, Oxford University Press, vol. 29(2), pages 373-383.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:medlaw:v:29:y:2021:i:2:p:373-383.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/medlaw/fwaa040
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:medlaw:v:29:y:2021:i:2:p:373-383.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/medlaw .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.