This site uses cookies.

Case Note: Battram v Dr Geoghegan - Carol Maunder, Dutton Gregory LLP

24/07/17. Type of Injury: Damage to kidney function
Court title: Battram v Dr Geoghegan
Damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity: £25,000
Total damages agreed: £41,000
Sex: Male
Age at date of incident: 28
Date of knowledge: 18.9.12
Date of settlement: 19.2.16
Solicitor (Claimant): Carol Maunder, Dutton Gregory LLP Solicitors, Bournemouth
Solicitor (Defendant): Rosamund Oddie, Claims Manager, Medical Protection Society
Counsel for the Claimant: Daniel Bennett, Doughty Street Chambers

FACTS

On 18.9.12 the Claimant received a telephone call from his GP, the Defendant, to advise him that:

  1. When the Claimant had undergone a blood test in January 2011, his kidney function was at 80%. The Defendant did not advise him of this fact as the Defendant considered it an acceptable result.

  2. When the Claimant had undergone a blood test in July 2012, his kidney function was at 50%. The Defendant did not mention this because the Claimant was due to go on holiday.

  3. His blood test from 17.9.12 was showing 30% function and the Defendant was planning to refer the Claimant urgently to the Renal Unit at James Cook Hospital.

The Claimant was subsequently diagnosed with Crescentic IGA Nephropathy, to be treated with high-dose steroids. The Claimant’s case was that the Defendant should have referred him in January 2011 and/or in July 2012. This failure to refer him caused him injury and loss...

Image ©iStockphoto.com/zlikovec

Read more (PIBULJ subscribers only)...

All information on this site was believed to be correct by the relevant authors at the time of writing. All content is for information purposes only and is not intended as legal advice. No liability is accepted by either the publisher or the author(s) for any errors or omissions (whether negligent or not) that it may contain. 

The opinions expressed in the articles are the authors' own, not those of Law Brief Publishing Ltd, and are not necessarily commensurate with general legal or medico-legal expert consensus of opinion and/or literature. Any medical content is not exhaustive but at a level for the non-medical reader to understand. 

Professional advice should always be obtained before applying any information to particular circumstances.

Excerpts from judgments and statutes are Crown copyright. Any Crown Copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of OPSI and the Queen’s Printer for Scotland under the Open Government Licence.