Category: doctors

Injunction to prevent a breach of mutual trust and confidence: Smo v Hywel Dda University Health Board [2020] EWHC 727 (QB) – 3PB

Posted May 15th, 2020 in chambers articles, contract of employment, disciplinary procedures, doctors, employment, hospitals, injunctions, news by sally

‘The Court found in favour of the Claimant, a Consultant Surgeon, to restrain the Defendant from continuing a working relationships investigation into his alleged conduct, competence or behaviour, whilst carrying out disciplinary proceedings in parallel. The Defendant’s breached a duty of mutual trust it owed to the Claimant when they decided to embark on a working relationships investigation which was not decided through the exercise of a discretionary power expressly or impliedly conferred on it by the Claimant’s contract of employment.’

Full Story

3PB, 1st May 2020

Source: www.3pb.co.uk

Is the law of vicarious liability still ‘on the move’? Barclays Bank plc v Various Claimants [2020] UKSC 13 – 3PB

Posted May 12th, 2020 in assault, doctors, news, sexual offences, vicarious liability by sally

‘The 126 claimants in this case were all employees of Barclays Bank who, at the start of their employment between the late 1960s and early 1980s, were required to undergo a medical examination. Examinations were carried out by Dr Bates (now deceased), a general practitioner who was not an employee of the Bank but engaged as an independent contractor to provide this service, and did so at his home. The Claimants alleged that they were sexually assaulted by Dr Bates while undergoing this examination and brought a group action against the Bank for compensation. A preliminary issue was whether Barclays could be vicariously liable for his actions.’

Full Story

3PB, May 2020

Source: www.3pb.co.uk

Scott v LGBT Foundation Ltd: When Dealing with Personal Information Falls Outside the Data Protection Regime – The 36 Group

Posted May 11th, 2020 in chambers articles, charities, confidentiality, consent, data protection, disclosure, doctors, human rights, mental health, news, privacy by sally

‘In Scott v LGBT Foundation Ltd [2020] EWHC 483 (QB) the High Court held that “a verbal disclosure does not constitute the processing of personal data” under the Data Protection Act 1998 (“DPA 1998”).’

Full Story

The 36 Group, 5th May 2020

Source: 36group.co.uk

The Coronavirus and Employers’ Liability for PPE – Ropewalk Chambers

Posted May 7th, 2020 in coronavirus, doctors, employment, health & safety, news, nurses, protective equipment by sally

‘The Coronavirus pandemic is likely to lead to litigation in various forms1; indeed, two doctors are reported to have already intimated a public law challenge to the lawfulness of the personal protective equipment (PPE) guidance published by the Department of Health and Social Care, and Public Health England.’

Full Story

Ropewalk Chambers, 4th May 2020

Source: www.ropewalk.co.uk

Informed Consent: Where Are We Now – Ropewalk Chambers

Posted May 6th, 2020 in appeals, chambers articles, consent, doctors, medical treatment, negligence, news, personal injuries, Supreme Court by sally

‘In Montgomery -v- Lanarkshire Health Board [2015] 1 AC 1430; [2015] UKSC 15, the Supreme Court held:

“The doctor is therefore under a duty to take reasonable care to ensure that the patient is aware of any material risks involved in any recommended treatment, and of any reasonable alternative or variant treatments. The test of materiality is whether, in the circumstances of the particular case, a reasonable person in the patient’s position would likely to attach significance to the risk, or the doctor is or should reasonably be aware that the particular patient would be likely to attach significance to it.”‘

Full Story

Ropewalk Chambers, 30th April 2020

Source: www.ropewalk.co.uk

PPE & sex discrimination claims – Cloisters

Posted May 5th, 2020 in coronavirus, doctors, news, nurses, protective equipment, sex discrimination by sally

‘The media is currently saturated with reports concerning the absence of adequate Personal Protective Equipment (‘PPE’) in clinical settings. To date, commentators have understandably focused on the extent to which employers may be breaching health and safety legislation by failing to provide staff with PPE and whether staff are protected under whistleblowing legislation if they speak out. Moreover, this month two doctors launched an urgent legal challenge to guidance by NHS England on PPE. In this blog, Dee Masters and Jen Danvers look at a different aspect to the PPE debate, namely whether there is scope for sex discrimination claims arising from equipment which has been designed to fit the average man rather than their female colleagues.’

Full Story

Cloisters, 29th April 2020

Source: www.cloisters.com

COVID-19 Deaths and PPE – The Coroner’s Role – Parklane Plowden Chambers

Posted May 4th, 2020 in chambers articles, coronavirus, coroners, doctors, emergency services, health, health & safety, hospitals, inquests, news, nurses by sally

‘Inevitably the COVID-19 pandemic will result in a significant increase in the workload of coroners and the number of inquests being heard. Cases where the virus may have been contracted in the workplace setting including frontline workers because of the lack of personal protective equipment (PPE) may be one significant area of potential inquiry.’

Full Story

Parklane Plowden Chambers, 4th May 2020

Source: www.parklaneplowden.co.uk

Coronavirus and Clinical Negligence – Coronavirus: Guidance for Lawyers and Businesses

Posted May 1st, 2020 in chambers articles, coronavirus, damages, doctors, emergency powers, hospitals, medical treatment, negligence, news, nurses by sally

‘Nigel Poole QC considers the question: how will the Coronavirus pandemic affect clinical negligence litigation in England and Wales?’

Full Story

Coronavirus: Guidance for Lawyers and Businesses, 30th April 2020

Source: lawinthetimeofcorona.wordpress.com

NHS staff coronavirus inquests told not to look at PPE shortages – The Guardian

Posted April 30th, 2020 in coronavirus, doctors, inquests, news, nurses, protective equipment by sally

‘Inquests into coronavirus deaths among NHS workers should avoid examining systemic failures in provision of personal protective equipment (PPE), coroners have been told, in a move described by Labour as “very worrying”.’

Full Story

The Guardian, 29th April 2020

Source: www.theguardian.com

The Frontline Doctors Challenging The Government’s Handling Of Covid-19 – Each Other

Posted April 29th, 2020 in coronavirus, doctors, equality, government departments, health, health & safety, hospitals, judicial review, news, standards by sally

‘On Thursday (23 April), the couple launched a legal challenge against the government’s guidance on personal protective equipment (PPE), which they argue exposes them to coronavirus infections.’

Full Story

Each Other, 28th April 2020

Source: eachother.org.uk

Doctor couple challenge UK government on PPE risks to BAME staff – The Guardian

Posted April 27th, 2020 in coronavirus, doctors, equality, government departments, health, health & safety, news by sally

‘Two doctors are launching a legal challenge over government guidance on personal protective equipment which they say exposes them to coronavirus infections.’

Full Story

The Guardian, 24th April 2020

Source: www.theguardian.com

Has the government broken the law by putting NHS staff in harm’s way? – The Guardian

Posted April 27th, 2020 in coronavirus, doctors, duty of care, government departments, health, health & safety, hospitals, human rights, inquiries, news, nurses by sally

‘If there have been systemic flaws over PPE, ministers could be in breach of the European convention on human rights.’

Full Story

The Guardian, 25th April 2020

Source: www.theguardian.com

If ministers fail to reveal 2016 flu study they ‘will face court’ – The Guardian

Posted April 27th, 2020 in coronavirus, disclosure, doctors, freedom of information, government departments, health, judicial review, news, pre-action conduct, reports by sally

‘The government faces being taken to court if it refuses to disclose the findings of an exercise confirming the UK could not cope with a flu pandemic.’

Full Story

The Guardian, 26th April 2020

Source: www.theguardian.com

What Standard of Care Should Hospitals be Held to in the COVID-19 Outbreak? – 39 Essex Chambers

Posted April 24th, 2020 in chambers articles, coronavirus, doctors, health, health & safety, hospitals, negligence, news, nurses, professional conduct, standards by sally

‘It is no secret that Covid-19 is placing huge strain on the NHS, with ramifications across all parts of an already stretched organisation. Hospitals nationwide have been told to prepare for a tsunami of patients demanding very high levels of care. They are having to do so while facing staff shortages and worries over the supply of essential equipment. In an effort to cope, retired doctors and not-yet-fully qualified doctors have been drafted in. In such circumstances, it is inevitable that accidents will happen and errors will be made. Once all of this is over, it is a regrettable fact that litigation will ensue. Will the law step up to protect the professionals who have done so much to save lives and ready the nation for the post-corona world? This short article argues that it can and should, most obviously by recognising that desperate circumstances should be reflected in the standard of care applied to hospitals and medical professionals working in response to Covid-19.’

Full Story

39 Essex Chambers, 22nd April 2020

Source: www.39essex.com

Judge demands “level playing field” on recording medical examinations – Litigation Futures

Posted April 21st, 2020 in accidents, doctors, expert witnesses, judges, medical records, news, personal injuries, psychiatric damage by sally

‘The High Court has insisted that there must be a “level playing field” when it comes to recording medical examinations.’

Full Story

Litigation Futures, 21st April 2020

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Rowing back on vicarious liability – Law Society’s Gazette

Posted April 21st, 2020 in compensation, data protection, doctors, employment, news, sexual offences, Supreme Court, vicarious liability by sally

‘Two judgments from the Supreme Court have set restrictions on the scope of vicarious liability. In Barclays Bank v Various Claimants [2020] UKSC 13 the test was whether the tortfeasor was in fact the ‘employee’ of the employer. The claimants alleged that they had suffered sexual abuse by a GP hired by the bank to carry out medical assessments of employees.’

Full Story

Law Society's Gazette, 20th April 2020

Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk

Case Comment: Barclays Bank Plc v Various Claimants [2020] UKSC 13 – UKSC Blog

Posted April 21st, 2020 in appeals, class actions, compensation, doctors, employment, news, sexual offences, Supreme Court, vicarious liability by sally

‘Alaina Wadsworth, Chris Horsefield and Ben Brown, who all work within the Insurance & Reinsurance Group at CMS, comment on the decision handed down by the UK Supreme Court earlier this month, in the matter of Barclays Bank Plc v Various Claimants [2020] UKSC 13.’

Full Story

UKSC Blog, 20th April 2020

Source: ukscblog.com

Union seeks legal immunity for NHS medics in pandemic – The Guardian

Posted April 20th, 2020 in coronavirus, dentists, doctors, immunity, indemnities, negligence, news, nurses, trade unions by tracey

‘The NHS could be faced with billions of pounds of medical negligence claims if it does not grant some form of legal immunity to medics risking their lives during the pandemic, the government has been warned. The Medical Defence Union (MDU), which provides legal support to around 200,000 doctors, nurses, dentists and other healthcare workers, is calling for a debate over the need for emergency legislation.’

Full Story

The Guardian, 19th April 2020

Source: www.theguardian.com

Delimiting Vicarious Liability in the Context of Independent Contractors – 12 King’s Bench Walk

Posted April 17th, 2020 in chambers articles, contracting out, damages, doctors, employment, news, sexual offences, Supreme Court, vicarious liability by sally

‘The law around vicarious liability has been “on the move” since at least the 2012 landmark decision of the Supreme Court in Various Claimants v Catholic Child Welfare Society [2012] UKSC 56 (the “Christian Brothers case”). However, after years of expansion, the Supreme Court has now held in Barclays Bank plc v Various Claimants [2020] UKSC 13 that liability will not always be imposed for the acts of an independent contractor.’

Full Story

12 King's Bench Walk, 3rd April 2020

Source: www.12kbw.co.uk

Vicarious Liability – the move is over – Hailsham Chambers

Posted April 17th, 2020 in appeals, chambers articles, damages, data protection, doctors, employment, news, sexual offences, Supreme Court, vicarious liability by sally

‘On 1 April 2020, the Supreme Court handed down judgment in two conjoined Vicarious Liability cases: WM Morrisons Supermarkets plc v Various Claimants [2020] UKSC 12 and Barclays Bank plc v Various Claimants [2020] UKSC 13. In this article, Michael Patrick reviews those judgments and considers their impact on the law of Vicarious Liability.’

Full Story

Hailsham Chambers, 9th April 2020

Source: www.hailshamchambers.com