Hospital Negligence Claim

Rachael Holsgrove (By Her Father And Litigation Friend Keith Holsgrove) V South West London Strategic Health Authority (Formerly South West London Health Authority) (2004)

A defendant health authority was found to be negligent in failing to advise the claimant's parents of the appropriate options, which included a caesarean section, for the claimant's birth in light of her family history.

The claimant (H), by her father and litigation friend, brought a claim in negligence against the hospital and senior registrar who managed her delivery. H had cerebral palsy, Erb's palsy, cognitive impairment and other mental problems all stemming from the manner of her delivery which had been complicated by shoulder dystocia (SD) and the measures taken to free her from her mother. At H's delivery SD occurred and she had to be resuscitated from stillbirth.

H's mother had a previous daughter whose delivery had been marked by SD and H's parents had expressed their concern about the possibility of SD occurring at H's delivery. H claimed that her parents were not told of the options, which included a caesarean section (CS), and the relative risks, and that they would have opted for CS which would have prevented injury to H but had some risks to her mother.

H further claimed that the option of vaginal delivery which was taken should have included an epidural and they should have considered inducing H at an earlier stage. The court had to consider whether the emergency and the injuries which followed could have been avoided and whether they were the result of any breach of duty of care on the part of the defendant health authority.

HELD: (1) M should have investigated the previous history of SD in H's family. H's parents were entitled to have been told of the option of CS and the relative risks. H's parents would have taken the option of CS had it been offered to them in view of the trauma of their first daughter's birth. Those findings disposed of the manner of liability in H's favour.

(2) Although H's mother had not wanted to have an epidural, there was no doubt that she would have accepted one if told that it would have avoided her previous experience and been of assistance if SD occurred. However, although an epidural would have made it more comfortable for H's mother, it would not have helped H. An epidural would not have affected the outcome and the court was not satisfied that it was outside the range of acceptable practice not to have one. That route to liability therefore failed.

Judgment for claimant.

Negligence - Personal Injury

QBD (Hunt J) 15/3/2004

LTL 26/3/2004 (Unreported elsewhere)

Document No.: AC010806287