Coakley v Rosie
2014
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
UK
CORAM
- HIS HONOUR JUDGE OLIVER-JONES QC
Areas of Law
- Tort Law
- Health Law
2014
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
UK
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
In January 2008, the Claimant suffered bacterial meningitis resulting in blindness, significant hearing loss, and other neurological damage due to alleged negligence by the Defendant GP. The court found the GP negligent for failing to properly diagnose and treat the meningitis during a consultation on 7th January 2008. The court held that earlier treatment would have likely prevented the Claimant's injuries, establishing the necessity for urgent treatment in suspected meningitis cases.
Judgment
His Honour Judge Oliver-Jones QC:
References to the Trial Bundle is by Volume [1 – 9] / Page Number e.g. 4/763 is the report of Professor Schapira. Volume 1 is described as a ‘Core Bundle’ and page references for this bundle will begin with ‘1/C’ followed by the page number e.g. 1/C67
1. In January 2008, at the age of 42 years, the Claimant suffered bacterial meningitis. As a result of that infection she suffered total loss of her sight and substantial loss of hearing, with other significant but less serious neurological damage. She claims damages for these devastating injuries and consequential losses. She alleges that but for the negligence of the Defendant, then a general medical practitioner, in failing to recognise or suspect, and consequently failing to treat, the infection, when she attended the Defendant’s surgery on Monday 7th January 2008, she would not have suffered the injurious sequelae. Further or alternatively, she alleges that the Defendant’s negligence materially contributed to the injury she sustained as a result of the bacterial infection. The Defendant denies that she was negligent or that the injury sustained by the Claimant was caused thereby. It is her case that anything which it is proved she negligently did or failed to do, did not affect the course and consequences of the bacterial infection from which the Claimant was then suffering. The parties have reached agreement as to the damages recoverable by the Claimant in the event that she succeeds on the issues of breach of duty by the Defendant and causation of injury and loss; consequently, this judgment is limited to determining those issues.
2. In the course of the trial I heard evidence from the Claimant, her husband, the Defendant and eleven expert witnesses representing six medical disciplines. There were substantial disputes of fact, as well as differences of medical opinion, which I have had to resolve. Notwithstanding her blindness and substantial impairment of hearing, the Claimant was able to give oral evidence clearly. In particular, she was able to deal with questions which arose from her witness statement (standing as evidence-in-chief and which had been taken at her dictation and then read back to her before she signed a statement of truth) as well as other documentary material, although relevant passages to be read to her before questions were put, particularly during cross-examination. The fact that the Claimant is an obviously intelligent and deter