Michael Mark Junior Darnley v Croydon Health Services NHS Trust
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | His Honour Judge Robinson |
| Judgment Date | 31 July 2015 |
| Neutral Citation | [2015] EWHC 2301 (QB) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
| Docket Number | Case No: HQ13X02555 |
[2015] EWHC 2301 (QB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
His Honour Judge Robinson
sitting as a Judge of the High Court
Case No: HQ13X02555
Jeremy Pendlebury (instructed by Russell-Cooke LLP) for The Claimant
Bradley Martin (instructed by Capsticks) for The Defendant
Hearing dates: 27 – 29 April 2015
Approved Judgment
I direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A para 6.1 no official recording shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic.
Introduction
On Monday 17 May 2010 the Claimant was unlawfully attacked and struck on the head by unknown assailants. There is a degree of confusion about precisely when he was so attacked. Times of 5:00pm and 7:00pm have been given. For the purposes of this case, the precise time is immaterial.
After a time the Claimant began to feel unwell. He was persuaded by his friend Robert Tubman to go to hospital. Mr Tubman drove him to the Accident and Emergency Department of the Mayday University Hospital, Croydon. The hospital is now known as the Croydon University Hospital.
The Claimant was booked in at the hospital A&E reception at 8:26pm. I find on the evidence that he left the hospital at 8:45pm at the latest without having been seen by a clinician. Having returned home, his condition deteriorated. An ambulance was called at about 9:42pm. He was first taken to the Defendant's hospital. A CT scan showed the presence of an extra-dural haematoma. He was transferred to St George's Hospital for neurosurgery to remove the haematoma. He has suffered a left hemiplegia.
In this trial I am concerned only with liability. It is agreed that had the Claimant remained at the hospital he would have been treated sufficiently sooner that he would have gone on to make an essentially full recovery.
The Claimant's case is that during the period he was at the hospital, there were breaches of duty by the non-clinical reception staff and by the professional clinical staff. The alleged breach of duty by the reception staff concerns what information he was given about the time he would have to wait before being seen by a clinician, and also a failure to assess the Claimant for "priority triage". The alleged breach of duty by the clinical staff concerns the failure to assess the Claimant during the time he was present at the hospital.
Thus I am concerned with what happened in the period of 19 minutes during which the Claimant was present at the hospital.
The Evidence
For the Claimant I heard from, and read the written evidence of, the following witnesses:
(1) The Claimant himself;
(2) Robert Tubman, the Claimant's friend who drove him to and from the hospital and remained with him at the hospital;
(3) Patreese Erskine, the Claimant's sister;
(4) Patricia Smith, the Claimant's mother;
(5) Ceylan Ozdemir, the Claimant's girlfriend;
(6) Mr J R C Heyworth, Consultant in Emergency Medicine.
For the Defendant I heard from, and read the written evidence of, the following witnesses:
(1) Yvonne Battie was the A&E receptionist on duty when the Claimant arrived by ambulance at the hospital. She was not on duty when the Claimant arrived at 8:26pm earlier that evening;
(2) Valerie Ashley was one of two A&E receptionists on duty when the Claimant arrived at 8:26pm. She has no recollection of the events of that evening;
(3) Susan Reeves-Bristow was the other receptionist on duty when the Claimant arrived at 8:26pm. She also has no recollection of the events of that evening;
(4) Dr G L Campbell-Hewson, Consultant in Emergency Medicine.
I am satisfied that all of the witnesses have done their best to assist me in my task of fact finding. In making findings of fact I have had regard to all of the evidence.
I do not need to dwell upon the events immediately following the attack on the Claimant, save to observe that he was not immediately so unwell that he felt any need to go to hospital.
Presentation at Hospital
By the time the Claimant signed his witness statement on 28 June 2014, he had little recollection of relevant events. He remembered his friend Robert Tubman arriving by car to drive the Claimant to see a potential landlord. He says in his witness statement that by then his head "felt as if it was in a vice".
At the hospital he remembers talking to the receptionist, and that it was difficult for him to stand because his head was hurting so much. He says this:
"… I do remember talking to the receptionist in A&E. I remember it was difficult for me to stand because my head was hurting so much and I was collapsed against the window of the A&E department. I remember that she did not seem to be listening to what I was telling her namely that I had been attacked and I had a head injury and I had a very bad headache."
He described the manner of the receptionist as being "off hand" and goes on to say that she "told me that I would have to wait in the waiting area for up to 4–5 hours". He continues in his witness statement thus:
"I remember sitting in the waiting area with Robert for a while and feeling terrible. My head was really painful and felt like it was in a vice. I just wanted to go home and lie down. If the receptionist had reassured me that I would be seen by a nurse to assess me before having to wait so long to see a doctor I would have stayed. There was no way I could wait there for 4 or 5 hours and I remember telling Robert that I wanted to go home and we left."
In cross examination he said he had been trying to tell the receptionist that he head "was in pain I had never experienced before", and "I just said my head was hurting and I need to be seen straight away". That goes beyond what he said in his written evidence and it must be open to doubt that he in fact said anything beyond that which appears in his written evidence.
Mr Tubman's account of events upon arrival at the hospital appears at paragraph 6 of his witness statement:
"Michael tried to tell the lady at the desk that he had been involved in an incident in which somebody had hit him over the back of his head and he believed he had a head injury. He told the lady that he was feeling very unwell and his head was really hurting. The lady did not have a helpful attitude at all to Michael. She seemed more concerned as to how the injury had occurred and she asked Michael if the police had been involved. Michael tried to explain to her that he had been hit over the head and was worried that he had a head injury and needed to be seen quickly. I also tried to explain to the lady that Michael was really unwell and we were worried that he had a head injury and needed urgent attention."
Time at the Hospital
An important issue is the length of time that the Claimant remained at the hospital. The Claimant himself cannot now assist on that issue. During cross examination he was taken to a document at pages 321–328 in Bundle 1. It is a form of application for compensation addressed to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority. At page 328 these words appear in handwritten block capitals concerning the time the Claimant remained at the hospital:
"[The receptionist] told me to sit down and wait for 5 hours. I sat down for around 2 minutes and then left as I felt it was pointless to stay due to the pain in my head and lack of help."
The Claimant explained that he did not complete the form himself and said that the person who completed the form for the Claimant must have made a mistake.
Page 45 in Bundle 1 is a copy of a typed letter dated 14 November 2010 from the Claimant complaining about his treatment at the hospital. In it he says:
"I waited for approximately an hour, however, when the pain became unbearable I left the hospital in hope that I would feel better after some rest."
The Claimant says of this letter that it was written by a friend on the basis of what the Claimant told him. The Claimant said that he wanted to say "20 to 30 minutes" and could not explain why the friend had typed "an hour". It was put to the Claimant that he had stayed at the hospital for only a few minutes, but he said in his oral evidence on one occasion that he waited for 20 minutes and on another that he waited for 20 or 30 minutes.
I will deal fully with Robert Tubman's evidence on matters other than the time he remained with the Claimant at the hospital in due course. Dealing with that time he says in his witness statement that:
"We probably waited for about 20–30 minutes until Michael said that the pain was too much and that he felt too unwell to keep sitting there and insisted on going back home for paracetamol."
The Claimant's mother, Patricia Smith, said in her oral evidence that she was aware of the Claimant arriving home. She said she was waiting for the 9:00pm news to start and just after it had started her daughter had called to her to say that Michael was here. That is consistent with the ambulance records which record that the Claimant had arrived home at 9:00pm. It is inconsistent with Patricia Smith saying that the Claimant had "just come in" during the 999 call timed at 9:42pm. She was asked about this and said she had not meant it literally.
I am confident in finding that the Claimant arrived home just after the start of the 9:00pm news.
There appears to be agreement that it takes about 13 minutes to drive from the hospital to the Claimant's home — see the AA Route Planner document at page 133 of Bundle 1. To that period there must be added a short time representing time to walk from the A&E department to Mr Tubman's car and then from the car into the Claimant's home. Thus the whole journey is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Michael Mark Junior Darnley (Appellant / Claimant) v Croydon Health Services NHS Trust (Respondent / Defendant)
-
Darnley v Croydon Health Services NHS Trust
...The trial took place on 25–27 April 2015 before HHJ Robinson, sitting as a judge of the High Court. He gave judgment on 31 July 2015: [2015] EWHC 2301 (QB). 10 The judge made the following findings of fact and came to the following conclusions of law. (1) The appellant did not fall into th......