What happened
Between January and March 2007 the patient received treatment for gallstones and bile duct infection, including an endoscopic procedure followed by gallbladder removal. During that period he fractured his skull in a fall after leaving hospital, and later attributed that injury and conditions including diabetes and peripheral neuropathy to his care. His allegations also concerned a separate fall from a hospital bed, discharge and the information provided about treatment.
The issues
The central questions were whether the contemporaneous records and expert evidence established a missed diagnosis of diabetes or acute cholecystitis, or an unreasonable delay in surgery. Even if a breach were assumed, the patient had to prove that earlier diagnosis or treatment would have prevented the relevant falls or disability. The Court considered professional practice under the Civil Liability Act 2002 and causation under s 5D.
The court's decision
The Court found no negligence in treating the bile duct infection endoscopically before surgery or in the timing of surgery. The expert evidence did not establish the proposed chain from treatment to disability, and no significant additional injury from the hospital-bed fall was proved. Judgment was entered for the health district, with costs reserved in this decision.
What this case shows
The decision shows why the sequence of treatment followed by disability does not itself establish negligent care or causation. An expert's initial opinions changed when tested against the actual hospital records rather than the history supplied by the patient. Diagnosis, the reasonableness of treatment choices and the cause of each injury therefore required separate analysis.
Why another case may differ
The later discussion of damages was contingent on the liability findings being overturned and was not an award. The 2016 appeal was dismissed, and leave to appeal in proceedings seeking to revive the same claims was refused in 2021. A separate claim brought by the patient's widow concerning his later death was dismissed in 2026; that ruling was not a fresh merits determination of the 2007 treatment.
Applying it to your claim
Different facts, evidence or procedures, an appeal, or a change in the law may affect how this decision applies. This is general information, not a report of a case handled by Park & Co Lawyers.
Considering a second opinion? →