Claim from non-patient struck out: ABC v St George’s Healthcare NHS Trust, South West London and St George’s Mental Health NHS Trust and Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (High Court, 19 May 2015 – Nicol J)
{"title":"Claim from non-patient struck out: ABC v St George’s Healthcare NHS Trust, South West London and St George’s Mental Health NHS Trust and Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (High Court, 19 May 2015 – Nicol J)","authors":"J. Mead","doi":"10.1177/1356262215591765","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The trusts applied to strike out this claim on the basis that there was no reasonable prospect of the claimant establishing that it would be fair, just or reasonable to impose a duty of care in the circumstances. The judge made an anonymity order in relation to the claimant, her father and daughter but not in respect of the trusts involved. In 2007, the claimant’s father (F) shot and killed the claimant’s mother. He was convicted of manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility and detained at a clinic run by the second defendant. In 2009, it was suspected that he was suffering from Huntington’s disease and he was referred to St George’s Hospital, the responsibility of the first defendant. He had also been seen by a social worker employed by the third defendant. In November 2009, it was confirmed that F did indeed have Huntington’s disease. This disease is genetic in origin and, if a parent has it, there is a 50% chance that his or her child will do so too. Various health professionals therefore sought F’s consent to disclose the diagnosis to his daughter, the claimant, who was pregnant at the time. F refused permission. In January 2013, the claimant herself was diagnosed with the same condition but it was too early to tell whether her daughter (C) also had the disease.","PeriodicalId":89664,"journal":{"name":"Clinical risk","volume":"21 1","pages":"53 - 54"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1356262215591765","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical risk","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1356262215591765","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
Abstract
The trusts applied to strike out this claim on the basis that there was no reasonable prospect of the claimant establishing that it would be fair, just or reasonable to impose a duty of care in the circumstances. The judge made an anonymity order in relation to the claimant, her father and daughter but not in respect of the trusts involved. In 2007, the claimant’s father (F) shot and killed the claimant’s mother. He was convicted of manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility and detained at a clinic run by the second defendant. In 2009, it was suspected that he was suffering from Huntington’s disease and he was referred to St George’s Hospital, the responsibility of the first defendant. He had also been seen by a social worker employed by the third defendant. In November 2009, it was confirmed that F did indeed have Huntington’s disease. This disease is genetic in origin and, if a parent has it, there is a 50% chance that his or her child will do so too. Various health professionals therefore sought F’s consent to disclose the diagnosis to his daughter, the claimant, who was pregnant at the time. F refused permission. In January 2013, the claimant herself was diagnosed with the same condition but it was too early to tell whether her daughter (C) also had the disease.