Novel genetic disease claim struck out: A and M v University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust (High Court, 15 April 2016 Judge McKenna)

J. Mead
{"title":"Novel genetic disease claim struck out: A and M v University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust (High Court, 15 April 2016 Judge McKenna)","authors":"J. Mead","doi":"10.1177/1356262216659423a","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In the present case, there was no doubt that the claimant had suffered profound distress as a consequence of the sequence of events which unfolded after initial realisation that his wife was not recovering as expected from surgery. However, the circumstances with which Mr Ronayne was confronted ‘‘fall far short of those which have been recognised by the law as founding secondary victim liability.’’ The judge was wrong in his conclusion. The events were not, unlike those in Walters, ‘‘a seamless tale with an obvious beginning and an equally obvious end.’’ Rather, there was a series of events over a period of time and no inexorable progression. Mr Ronayne suffered nothing like the ‘‘assault upon the senses’’ to which Mrs Walters awoke. He knew before seeing his wife that she was due to go into theatre for immediate surgery, and knew that meant her condition was serious. It followed that this was not a case where there was a sudden appreciation of a shocking event. On the contrary, there was a series of events which gave rise to an accumulation of gradual assaults upon the claimant’s mind. At each stage in this sequence the claimant ‘‘was conditioned for what he was about to perceive.’’ There was nothing sudden or unexpected about being ushered in to see his wife and finding her connected to medical equipment. Overall, what the claimant saw was not horrifying by objective standards. On both the first and second occasions, what Mr Ronayne saw was such as would ordinarily be expected of a person in hospital in the circumstances in which Mrs Ronayne found herself. What was required in order to found liability was something exceptional in nature. The court could readily accept that the appearance of Mrs Ronayne on the second occasion must have been alarming and distressing. However, it was not in context exceptional. Furthermore, the fact that Mr Ronayne did not suffer intrusive recollection of events told against the visual images of his wife being the trigger for his psychological condition. For all these reasons, the ruling of the judge would be overturned and judgment would be entered for the trust. Amanda Yip QC and Simon Fox (instructed by Maxwell Hodge) appeared for Mr Ronayne. Charles Cory-Wright QC (instructed by Hill Dickinson) appeared for the trust.","PeriodicalId":89664,"journal":{"name":"Clinical risk","volume":"14 1","pages":"128 - 129"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1356262216659423a","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical risk","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1356262216659423a","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

In the present case, there was no doubt that the claimant had suffered profound distress as a consequence of the sequence of events which unfolded after initial realisation that his wife was not recovering as expected from surgery. However, the circumstances with which Mr Ronayne was confronted ‘‘fall far short of those which have been recognised by the law as founding secondary victim liability.’’ The judge was wrong in his conclusion. The events were not, unlike those in Walters, ‘‘a seamless tale with an obvious beginning and an equally obvious end.’’ Rather, there was a series of events over a period of time and no inexorable progression. Mr Ronayne suffered nothing like the ‘‘assault upon the senses’’ to which Mrs Walters awoke. He knew before seeing his wife that she was due to go into theatre for immediate surgery, and knew that meant her condition was serious. It followed that this was not a case where there was a sudden appreciation of a shocking event. On the contrary, there was a series of events which gave rise to an accumulation of gradual assaults upon the claimant’s mind. At each stage in this sequence the claimant ‘‘was conditioned for what he was about to perceive.’’ There was nothing sudden or unexpected about being ushered in to see his wife and finding her connected to medical equipment. Overall, what the claimant saw was not horrifying by objective standards. On both the first and second occasions, what Mr Ronayne saw was such as would ordinarily be expected of a person in hospital in the circumstances in which Mrs Ronayne found herself. What was required in order to found liability was something exceptional in nature. The court could readily accept that the appearance of Mrs Ronayne on the second occasion must have been alarming and distressing. However, it was not in context exceptional. Furthermore, the fact that Mr Ronayne did not suffer intrusive recollection of events told against the visual images of his wife being the trigger for his psychological condition. For all these reasons, the ruling of the judge would be overturned and judgment would be entered for the trust. Amanda Yip QC and Simon Fox (instructed by Maxwell Hodge) appeared for Mr Ronayne. Charles Cory-Wright QC (instructed by Hill Dickinson) appeared for the trust.
新型遗传疾病索赔被驳回:A和M诉莱斯特NHS信托大学医院(高等法院,2016年4月15日麦肯纳法官)
在本案中,毫无疑问,索赔人在最初意识到他的妻子没有像预期的那样从手术中恢复后,由于一系列事件的发生而遭受了极大的痛苦。然而,Ronayne先生所面临的情况“远未达到法律认定的次要受害者责任”。法官的结论是错误的。与沃尔特斯的作品不同,这些事件并不是“一个天衣无缝的故事,有一个明显的开始,也有一个同样明显的结局”。“相反,在一段时间内发生了一系列事件,没有必然的进展。罗纳先生没有受到沃尔特斯太太醒来时那种“感官受到的冲击”。在见到妻子之前,他就知道她将立即进入手术室进行手术,并且知道这意味着她的病情很严重。由此可见,这并不是一个突然对一件令人震惊的事件有所认识的例子。相反,发生了一系列事件,使索赔人的精神逐渐受到攻击。在这个序列的每一个阶段,索赔人“对他将要感知的东西都有条件。“看到他的妻子,发现她连上了医疗设备,这一点都不突然或意外。总的来说,根据客观标准,索赔人所看到的并不可怕。在第一次和第二次的情况下,罗纳先生所看到的都是在罗纳夫人所处的情况下住院的人通常会看到的。认定责任所需要的是性质上的特殊情况。法庭可以很容易地接受Ronayne夫人第二次的出现一定是令人震惊和痛苦的。然而,这在上下文中并不例外。此外,事实是,罗纳先生并没有遭受与他妻子的视觉形象相反的事件的侵入性回忆,这是他心理状况的触发因素。由于所有这些原因,法官的裁决将被推翻,并为信托作出判决。阿曼达·叶(Amanda Yip QC)和西蒙·福克斯(Simon Fox)(由麦克斯韦·霍奇(Maxwell Hodge)指示)为罗纳先生出场。查尔斯·科里-赖特QC(受希尔·迪金森委托)代表信托基金出庭。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信