Mrs Julie Shorter v Surrey and Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | The Honourable Mrs Justice Swift |
| Judgment Date | 25 March 2015 |
| Neutral Citation | [2015] EWHC 614 (QB) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
| Docket Number | Case No: HQ12X01818 |
| Date | 25 March 2015 |
[2015] EWHC 614 (QB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
The Hon. Mrs Justice Swift DBE
Case No: HQ12X01818
Ms Charlotte Jones (instructed by Penningtons Manches) for the Claimant
Mr Julian Matthews (instructed by Capsticks) for the Defendant
Hearing dates: 18 – 20 November 20014
BACKGROUND TO THE CLAIM
On 13 May 2009, Mrs Lucia Sharma, who was aged 37 years and the mother of two small children, died as a result of a subarachnoid haemorrhage (SAH) from an aneurysm of the right middle cerebral artery whilst a patient at St George's Hospital, London (SGH). An earlier SAH from the aneurysm had caused her to experience a severe headache and to collapse at home on 5 May 2009. On that date, she was admitted to East Surrey Hospital (ESH), where a CT scan was performed and reported to be normal. She underwent no further investigations and no explanation for her collapse was found. It was thought she might be suffering from viral meningitis and she was discharged home without further treatment.
The Consultant Neurologist at ESH had had reservations about the CT scan and had arranged for it to be reviewed by a Consultant Neuroradiologist. The review did not take place until the early morning of 12 May 2009, i.e. a week later. The Consultant Neuroradiologist who undertook the review recognised that the CT scan showed evidence of a "bleed" (i.e. a SAH). Immediately after the review, arrangements were made for Mrs Sharma to be taken back to ESH, from where it was intended that she should be transferred as soon as possible to the specialist Neurosurgical Unit at SGH. In the event, it was not until about midnight on 12 May 2009 that she arrived at SGH. She immediately suffered a series of seizures, caused by a further catastrophic bleed resulting from the aneurysm. She was nursed on a life support machine and intubated, but was confirmed to be brain dead at 12.45hrs on 13 May 2009.
The Defendant is the NHS Trust responsible for ESH. Claims for damages were brought against the Defendant on behalf of Mrs Sharma's estate and her dependants and by her husband for nervous shock. It was alleged that those responsible for interpreting the first CT scan had been negligent in failing to detect the first SAH. The Defendant admitted liability for Mrs Sharma's death and settled those claims. The Defendant also admitted that, but for its negligence, Mrs Sharma would probably have survived. There was some dispute as to whether she would have made a full recovery; that dispute is immaterial for the purposes of this claim.
THE CLAIM
The claim with which I am concerned is brought by Mrs Julie Shorter, Mrs Sharma's elder sister, as a "secondary victim". She was aware of her sister's collapse on 5 May 2009 and of what happened thereafter. In particular, she was present with Mrs Sharma at ESH following Mrs Sharma's admission there on the morning of 12 May and she was also at SGH from shortly after Mrs Sharma's admission there until after she was pronounced dead on 13 May.
In the Claimant's Particulars of Claim, it is alleged that the Defendant, its servants or agents, were negligent in that they:
"(a) failed to report the CT scan performed on the 5 th May 2009 accurately until the 12 th May 2009.
(b) failed to diagnose the subarachnoid haemorrhage until the 12 th May 2009.
(c) discharged Mrs Sharma home on 7 th May 2009 when the CT scan performed on the 5 th May 2009 should have led to her urgent transfer to a neurosurgical centre for treatment for her subarachnoid haemorrhage."
In its Defence, the Defendant admits those allegations of negligence.
As to the causation of her death, it is contended that, had the CT scan been correctly reported at the outset and had Mrs Sharma been transferred promptly for treatment for her SHA, the probability is that she would have survived and recovered well. In the Defence, it is admitted that, but for the Defendant's negligence, Mrs Sharma would probably have survived. However, it is averred that she would probably have been left with some residual injury and would have remained at risk of delayed ischaemic deficit. For the purposes of this claim, as I have said, these averments are not relevant.
The Claimant's claim is based on her close relationship with Mrs Sharma. The Particulars of Claim allege at paragraph 25, that, as a result of the Defendant's negligence, the Claimant suffered a number of different insults which:
"constituted a seamless single horrendous event starting with the news of the serious deterioration in Mrs Sharma's condition on the morning of the 12 th May 2009 and that she had suffered a subarachnoid haemorrhage which had gone undiagnosed and untreated and concluding with her death which resulted in the Claimant sustaining … nervous shock …".
The nervous shock referred to was alleged to be a Major Depressive Episode.
In its Defence, the Defendant denied that the relationship between the Claimant and Mrs Sharma was sufficiently proximate to give rise to a cause of action for the alleged nervous shock. It denied also that the allegations were sufficient, even if proved, to give rise to a cause of action for nervous shock. Furthermore, it denied that, even insofar as any of the matters alleged may be found to be capable of giving rise to a cause of action for alleged nervous shock, the same caused the alleged or any injury or injuries.
At paragraph 19 of its Defence, the Defendant denied, inter alia:
"that there was a seamless single horrendous event starting on the morning of the 12 th May 2009, which the Claimant directly witnessed, and/or which the Claimant was directly and intimately involved in by direct sight or sound, as distinct from a gradual realisation over a prolonged period of the probable consequences for her sister of the events that commenced on 4 th or 5 th May 2009, sufficient to give rise to a cause of action for alleged nervous shock".
It is that issue with which this claim is primarily concerned.
THE TRIAL
The trial on liability and quantum in this case was heard on 18–20 November 2014. The Claimant was represented by Ms Charlotte Jones, and the Defendant by Mr Julian Matthews. I was grateful to both Counsel for their assistance.
I heard oral evidence from the Claimant, her husband, Mr Howard Shorter, and Mrs Sharma's widower, Mr Hitesh Sharma. The written evidence of Mr Ronald Stocker, father of the Claimant and Mrs Sharma, and of Ms Nathalie Pearson, a Senior Nursing Sister who had worked with the Claimant for many years, was uncontroversial and therefore they were not required to give oral evidence. The Defendant was content also for the written statement of Dr Anna Fletcher, the Claimant's general practitioner (GP) to be read, whilst making clear that, to the extent that she had given expert evidence, such evidence was not agreed.
The Defendant called oral evidence from Dr Jeffery Kimber, Consultant Neurologist at ESH and SGH, who was responsible for Mrs Sharma's care at ESH between 5 and 7 May 2009 and on 12 May. Dr Ferrigan, who was a Specialist Registrar at ESH and examined Mrs Sharma on 5 May and 12 May, was unable to give oral evidence by reason of the fact that she was pregnant with twins and deemed by her treating doctor to be at high risk. Her written evidence was admitted as hearsay evidence. Mrs Tunya Duggan and Ms Gillian Lees, who were Nurses on the Tilgate Ward at ESH during Mrs Sharma's time there on 12 May, provided witness statements which were based on manuscript accounts of the relevant events; those accounts had been written in August 2009. Both of them gave oral evidence.
Expert evidence was provided by two Consultant Neurosurgeons and two Consultant Psychiatrists. For the Claimant, Professor Paul Marks, Consultant Neurosurgeon at the General Infirmary at Leeds and Senior Lecturer in Neurosurgery at the University of Leeds, provided a Report dated 27 August 2013, in which he gave his opinion on the neurosurgical history which led to Mrs Sharma's catastrophic re-bleed and death. Mr Richard Mannion, Consultant Neurosurgeon at Spire Cambridge Lea Hospital, reported for the Defendant on 9 September 2013. On 4 August 2014, Professor Marks and Mr Mannion provided a Joint Statement setting out the results of a telephone discussion between them on 2 July 2014. They did not give oral evidence.
Dr Stuart Turner, a Consultant Psychiatrist, who is now in private practice and has considerable experience in the field of traumatic stress and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), gave evidence for the Claimant. He interviewed her first on 12 October 2011 and provided a Report dealing with Condition and Prognosis. On 16 October 2013, he provided a further Report, dealing with the issue of Causation and based on the Statements of Case, the witness statements of the Claimant and Mr Sharma and the statements of the Defendant's witnesses, together with the Reports of the Consultant Neurosurgeons. Following a further interview with the Claimant on 29 January 2014, he provided a third Report dated 13 February 2014, again dealing with Condition and Prognosis.
Dr R. W. Latcham, Consultant Psychiatrist, gave evidence for the Defendant. Until March 2014, he had practised at the Hinchingbrooke Hospital, Huntingdon, specialising in depression, grief disorder and PTSD. He provided a Report on Causation, Condition and Prognosis dated November 2013 for the Defendant. That Report was based on an interview with the Claimant on 12 December 2013. He also provided a Supplementary Report dated April 2014.
The Consultant Psychiatrists had a Joint Discussion by telephone, during which they addressed an Agenda of issues...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Saffron Paul v The Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust
... ... 2017 SCC 28 ; [ 2017 ] 1 SCR 543 Shorter v Surrey and Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust [2015] EWHC 614 ... ...
-
Liverpool Women's Hospital NHS Foundation Trust v Mr Edward Ronayne (Respondent/Claimant)
...by the accumulation over a period of time of more gradual assaults on the nervous system." 13 In Shorter v Surrey & Sussex HC NHS Trust [2015] EWHC 614 QB Swift J, who also has enormous experience in this field, was concerned with a claimant who saw her sister in undeniably distressing circ......
-
Timothy Owers as Administrator of the Estate of Karen Owers Deceased and Another v Medway NHS Foundation Trust and Another
...negligence in respect of a loved one have recently been considered in two cases. The first was Shorter v Surrey & Sussex HC NHS Trust [2015] EWHC 614 QB; the second Liverpool Women's Hospital NHS Foundation Trust v Ronayne [2015] EWCA Civ. 588. Both deal extensively with the authorities. I ......
-
Saffron Paul (a child, by her mother and litigation friend Balbir Kaur Paul) v The Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust
...not arise in the Walters case.” Shorter v Surrey and Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust 33 Shorter v Surrey and Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust [2015] EWHC 614 (QB) was another case of clinical negligence. The hospital had failed to diagnose an aneurysm as a result of which she suffered a subarachnoi......
-
Health Law News - February 2016
...(see Liverpool Women's Hospital NHS Foundation Trust v Ronayne [2015] EWCA Civ 588; Shorter v Surrey and Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust [2015] EWHC 614 (QB); Wild v Southend Hospital NHS Trust [2014] EWHC 4053 The relevant criteria for such a claim to succeed are set out in Alcock v South York......
-
Wells And Smith V University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust [2015] EWHC 2376 (QB)
...(see Liverpool Women's Hospital NHS Foundation Trust v Ronayne [2015] EWCA Civ 588; Shorter v Surrey and Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust [2015] EWHC 614 (QB); Wild v Southend Hospital NHS Trust [2014] EWHC 4053 The relevant criteria for such a claim to succeed are set out in Alcock v South York......
-
Secondary Victim Claims ' Where Are We Now?
...there was no sudden shock or an event which was horrifying by objective standards. In Shorter v Surrey and Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust [2015] EWHC 614 (QB), the case arose out of a failure to detect a first subarachnoid haemorrhage on 5 May 2009; had D done so, the primary victim should hav......