Trust hairdresser unable to recover for RSI – Lavinia Carrington -v- South Essex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (Southend County Court, 4/6/2014 – Judge Moloney QC)
{"title":"Trust hairdresser unable to recover for RSI – Lavinia Carrington -v- South Essex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (Southend County Court, 4/6/2014 – Judge Moloney QC)","authors":"J. Mead","doi":"10.1177/1356262214554741A","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"up over time. This, in the view of the judge, was helpful. From the moment of the first telephone call the glass started filling and kept being ‘topped up’ until eventually it overflowed in April 2010 when Mr Harris went to see his GP. The evidence of Professor Longson was generally to be preferred to that of Dr Elves. Held: The evidence did not support Dr Elves’ view that the claimant’s injury was a result of one incident. There were a number of factors, including: initial worry following the first telephone call; frustration and not being able to get home more quickly; being told of the gravity of the situation at hospital; seeing Mrs Harris in the Intensive Care Unit; the effect generally on family life and in particular on his relationship with his wife; the feelings of guilt which he had to deal with; and anger felt towards the Trust. It was impossible to conclude that there had been one single shocking event. Accordingly, this claim did not fall within the criteria for recovery laid down in Alcock and would be dismissed. Wendy Owen (instructed by Graystons) appeared for the claimant. Yaqub Rahman (instructed by Hill Dickinson) appeared for the Trust.","PeriodicalId":89664,"journal":{"name":"Clinical risk","volume":"20 1","pages":"91 - 92"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1356262214554741A","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical risk","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1356262214554741A","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
up over time. This, in the view of the judge, was helpful. From the moment of the first telephone call the glass started filling and kept being ‘topped up’ until eventually it overflowed in April 2010 when Mr Harris went to see his GP. The evidence of Professor Longson was generally to be preferred to that of Dr Elves. Held: The evidence did not support Dr Elves’ view that the claimant’s injury was a result of one incident. There were a number of factors, including: initial worry following the first telephone call; frustration and not being able to get home more quickly; being told of the gravity of the situation at hospital; seeing Mrs Harris in the Intensive Care Unit; the effect generally on family life and in particular on his relationship with his wife; the feelings of guilt which he had to deal with; and anger felt towards the Trust. It was impossible to conclude that there had been one single shocking event. Accordingly, this claim did not fall within the criteria for recovery laid down in Alcock and would be dismissed. Wendy Owen (instructed by Graystons) appeared for the claimant. Yaqub Rahman (instructed by Hill Dickinson) appeared for the Trust.