After an MRI scan it was was reveled that there was a disk protrusion into the spinal column and she was therefore advised to have surgery. Unfortunately, Ms Duce sustained nerve damage and now suffers from Chronic Post-Surgical Pain (“CPSP”). Disclaimer: This work was produced by one of our expert legal writers, as a learning aid to help law students with their studies. Ms Duce did not argue that the operation was performed negligently. Do you have a 2:1 degree or higher? An MRI scan revealed that there was disc protrusion into her spinal column and she was advised to have surgery. Chester v Afshar: Case Summary. The case I will be reviewing is Chester v Afshar. The House of Lords decided that a doctor's failure to fully inform a patient of all surgery risks vitiates the need to show that harm would have been caused by the failure to inform. However, the surgery carried an inherent risk of significant nerve damage in about 1-2% of cases. 1 The decision in Chester was that of a bare majority of the House, with Lord Bingham and Lord Hoffmann dissenting. The claimant agreed to the operation, which was carried out responsibly, however she fell within the 1%. In Chester v. Afshar,2 the highest English court went further It is just over a decade since the House of Lords handed down judgment in the medical non-disclosure case of Chester v Afshar. Chester v Afshar [2004] UKHL 41 is an important English tort law case regarding causation in a medical negligence context. In finding that an NHS trust had not breached its duty of care by failing to warn a patient of the risk of developing chronic post-surgical pain following a total abdominal hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, the Court of Appeal has provided useful guidance on the duty to disclose material risks to a patient post-Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board as well as some helpful commentary on the use of the ‘but for’ causation test following the decision in Chester v Afshar. Ms. Chester suffered from severe backaches for a considerable amount of time, and was referred to Dr. Afshar who was a renowned consultant neurosurgeon. Free resources to assist you with your legal studies! The House of Lords decided that a doctor's failure to inform a patient of all surgery risks vitiates the need to show that harm would have been caused by the failure to inform. Chester v Pashas brings rise to two key issues in medical law which is: the rules of causation and the disclosure of information before obtaining any patients consent to treatment. The defendant appealed, submitted that there was no causation as the likelihood of the claimant having consented to the operation at some point did not alter the fact that the operation bore risks. Registered office: Venture House, Cross Street, Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ. Chester v Afshar 1. Facts. Chester v Afshar A surgeon's duty to warn of surgery risks - Causation - a worrying development for defendants The recent House of Lords decision in Chester v Afshar (handed down on 14th October 2004) has set alarm bells ringing for defendants and their insurers alike. The chances of such type of damage is completely random, which the competence of the surgeon has no bearing. 38. Introduction Shortly after Fairchild v. Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd.,1 the House of Lords once again departed from orthodox causation rules in order to assist what it thought was a deserving plaintiff. This became quite severe and at times she was unable to walk or control her bladder. The House of Lords decided that a doctor's failure to fully inform a patient of all surgery risks vitiates the need to show that harm would have been caused by the failure to inform. Notably, whereas from a common man's perspective a doctor may be fully responsible for certain condition, this is not always the case when arguing from the law's point of view. Chester v Afshar case; Browse: All subjects; Law; Tort Law; Learn about: Online Resource Centres; VLE/CMS Content; Test Banks; Help; Your feedback; From … The claimant Chester, had managed with bad back pain for several years, which severely limited her ability to walk around and interfered with her ability to control her bladder. In Chester v. Afshar, the highest English court went further than it had previously dared to by accepting such a departure in a medical liability case. The House of Lords decided that a doctor's failure to fully inform a patient of all surgery risks vitiates the need to show that harm would have been caused by the failure to inform. All these duties Mr Afshar duly performed. Chester v Afshar (2004) English Medical Law ‘No Full Disclosure’ by Robert Burridge ‘But for’ causation and the principles of tort, while reminiscent of criminal procedure, can fall foul to policy loopholes when a duty of care is involved. The defendant appeals against the order made by His Honour Judge Robert Taylor, sitting as a Judge of the High Court in the Queen's Bench Division, on 21 December 2000 in a medical negligence action. In Chester v Afshar, a doctor negligently failed to warn a patient of risks inherent in an operation, specifically cauda equina syndrome. Failure to do so can be deemed as negligent. of Chester v Afshar A. Three days later, on 21 November 1994, Mr Afshar conducted an operation on Miss Chester's back, with her consent. Mr Afshar did examine Miss Chester, did advise and did undertake surgery. INTRODUCTION In its decision in Chester v Afshar,1 a 3:2 majority of the House of Lords held that the scope of a doctor’s duty to warn his patient of a non-negligible risk inherent in surgery extends to liability for personal injuries sustained by the patient as a result of the actuation of such risk. Chester v. Afshar [2004] UKHL 41; [2005] 1 A.C. 134; [2004] 3 W.L.R. Her surgeon, Mr Afshar failed to inform her of the 1-2 % risks of these surgeries going wrong. The pain could be severe and she had experienced episodes of being unable to walk or control her bladder. Chester v. Afshar Lara Khoury* I. A patient, Miss Chester, was under the care of a neurosurgeon, Mr Afshar, for a 6-year history of back pain and she had been shown to have a vertebral disc protrusion on an MRI scan. 927; [2004] 4 All E.R. Damage was … Chester v Afshar [2004] UKHL 41; [2005] 1 A.C. 134; [2004] 3 W.L.R. In Chester v. Afshar, the highest English court However P was unable to prove that had she been told of the risk, she would not have undergone … I will first review the rules of causation before relating these to Chester v Afshar. There was no suggestion here that Miss Chester was more at risk at the hands of Mr Afshar due to any lack of experience on his part than she would have been at the hands of anyone else. This thesis shall critically examine the cases of Chester v Afshar and Gregg v Scott to establish whether the cases can co-exist despite the stark differences in judicial reasoning to similar causal difficulties in each case. He did not warn her on the significant risk which a doctor had a duty to inform under Montgomery. The House of Lords dismissed the appeal (in a 3 – 2 split decision), holding that the defendant had failed in his tortious professional duty, satisfying the ‘but for’ test, and that the claimant deserved a remedy. In Chester v. Afshar, the highest English court went further than it had previously dared to by accepting such a departure in a medical liability case. Chester v Afshar 3 WLR 927 House of Lords The claimant had suffered back pain for 6 years. Chester v afshar: lt;p|>||Chester v Afshar|| [2004] medical negligence context. All these duties Mr Afshar duly performed. Discover the world's research. The factual background was that the claimant had suffered from heavy and painful periods as well as lower back pain. Judgement for the case Chester v Afshar D breached his tortious duty to P to warn her of the possible complication of an operation and this complication occurred. In finding that an NHS trust had not breached its duty of care by failing to warn a patient of the risk of developing chronic post-surgical pain following a total abdominal hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, the Court of Appeal has provided useful guidance on the duty to disclose material risks to a patient post-Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board as well as some helpful commentary on the use of the ‘but for’ causation test following the decision in Chester v Afshar. There was no complication during the operation and the surgeon was satisfied that his objectives had been met. Full Article. The House of Lords decided that a doctor's failure to fully inform a patient of all surgery risks vitiates the need to show that harm would have been caused by the failure to inform. In addition, the judge at first instance also found that causation had not been established and the claimant appealed on the basis that Chester -v- Afshar applied. After an MRI scan it was was reveled that there was a disk protrusion into the spinal column and she was therefore advised to have surgery. of Chester v Afshar A. In addition, the judge at first instance also found that causation had not been established and the claimant appealed on the basis that Chester -v- Afshar applied. It was therefore suggested that had she been informed she would have had the surgery at another time, which would probably not have led to the unfortunate r… Chester v Afshar Chester v Afshar Introduction In its decision in Chester v Afshar?1 a 3:2 majority of the House of Lords held that the scope of a doctor's duty to warn his patient of a non-negligible risk inherent in surgery extends to liability for personal injuries sustained … Chester v Afshar UKHL 41 is an important English tort law case regarding causation in a medical negligence context. Establishing causation following consent to medical treatment and subsequent injury. 927; [2004] 4 All E.R. 587; Times, October 19, 2004; is an important English tort law case regarding causation in a medical negligence context. Chester v Afshar [2004] UKHL 41 is an important English tort law case regarding causation in a medical negligence context. Any information contained in this case summary does not constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational content only. 587; Times, October 19, 2004; is an important English tort law case regarding causation in a medical negligence context. VAT Registration No: 842417633. It was therefore suggested that had she been informed she would have had the surgery at another time, which would probably not have led to the unfortunate r… Shortly after Fairchild v. Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd., the House of Lords once again departed from orthodox causation rules in order to assist what it thought was a deserving plaintiff. Chester v Afshar [2004] UKHL 41 is an important English tort law case regarding causation in a medical negligence context. The House of Lords decided that a doctor's failure to fully inform a patient of all surgery risks vitiates the need to show that harm would have been caused by … The House of Lords decided that a doctor's failure to fully inform a patient of all surgery risks vitiates the need to show that harm would have been caused by the failure to inform. Chester v Afshar (2004) English Medical Law ‘No Full Disclosure’ by Robert Burridge ‘But for’ causation and the principles of tort, while reminiscent of criminal procedure, can fall foul to policy loopholes when a duty of care is involved. The case of Chester v. Afshar suggested that the Fairchild ratio could be extended to beyond industrial disease cases. He did not warn her on the significant risk which a doctor had a duty to inform under Montgomery. Chester v Afshar is an English tort law case regarding medical negligence and the importance of informing patients of potential risks that are associated with any medical procedure. Establishing causation following consent to medical treatment and subsequent injury. *You can also browse our support articles here >. Chester v Afshar [2004] UKHL 41 is an important English tort law case regarding causation in a medical negligence context. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of LawTeacher.net. Abstract: Shortly after Fairchild v. Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd., the House of Lords once again departed from orthodox causation rules in order to assist what it thought was a deserving plaintiff. Abstract: Shortly after Fairchild v. Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd., the House of Lords once again departed from orthodox causation rules in order to assist what it thought was a deserving plaintiff. To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below: Our academic writing and marking services can help you! Ms Duce made a claim against the respondent for damages relating to an operation performed at Worcester Royal Hospital on 25thMarch 2008 which aimed to relieve her of persistent period pain. Chester v Afshar [2004] UKHL 41 is an important English tort law case regarding causation in a medical negligence context. Chester v Afshar This case involved a surgeon who failed to warn a patient of the potential risks of the operation, the court held that the scope of the surgeon’s duty of care to his patient included a duty to warn of any risks, hence there should be a remedy where a doctor failed to fulfil that duty. In a detailed and careful judgment the Court of Appeal (Hale LJ, Sir Christopher Slade and Sir Denis Henry) upheld the conclusion of the judge: Chester v Afshar  EWCA Civ 724;  QB 356. Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment. Ill first review the rules of causation before relating these to Chester v Pashas. In-house law team. Chester v Afshar Chester v Afshar Introduction In its decision in Chester v Afshar?1 a 3:2 majority of the House of Lords held that the scope of a doctor's duty to warn his patient of a non-negligible risk inherent in surgery extends to liability for personal injuries sustained … Scope of Duty and Causation: Chester v Afshar Revisited Join us for an evening looking at scope of duty and causation in medical claims based on Chester v Afshar [2005] 1 AC 134, which have come to the fore in recent cases such as Pomphrey v Secretary of State for Health [2019] 4 WLUK 483 or Khan v … Take a look at some weird laws from around the world! Mrs C was very nervous about her surgery, later medical evidence suggests the possibility of spinal damage (which she eventually sustained) was about 1-2%. Mrs C was very nervous about her surgery, later medical evidence suggests the possibility of spinal damage (which she … Breaking the chain-Wikipedia. A surgeon's duty to warn of surgery risks - Causation - a worrying development for defendants The recent House of Lords decision in Chester v Afshar (handed down on 14th October 2004) has set alarm bells ringing for defendants and their insurers alike. Notably, this surgery carried a very minor risk (1% approximately) that it would in fact worsen the issue, however the claimant had not been warned of this risk by the defendant. The House of Lords decided that a doctor's failure to fully inform a patient of all surgery risks vitiates the need to show that harm would have been caused by the failure to inform. Mrs C was very nervous about her surgery, later medical evidence suggests the possibility of spinal damage (which she eventually sustained) was about 1-2%. Surgeon found to be in breach of duty for failing to warn, however small the risk is. Miss Chester must show that Mr Afshar's failure to warn her of the risk of the damage she sustained caused her to suffer that damage. Registered Data Controller No: Z1821391. When Miss Chester regained consciousness she reported motor and sensory impairment below the level of L2. Chester v Afshar. The House of Lords decided that a d... World Heritage Encyclopedia, the aggregation of the largest online encyclopedias available, and the most definitive collection ever assembled. Chester v Afshar [2002] Lloyd's Rep Med 305 CIVIL DIVISION Lady Justice HALE, and . The issue in Chester v Afshar 3 WLR 927 was that whether or not the doctor was liable for the patients worsened back pain. He had not been warned of the risk, and sought damages. Responsibly, however small the risk is law team weird laws from around the world minutes and 30! Stye below: Our academic writing and marking services can help you tort law case regarding causation in a negligence! Well as lower back pain legal advice and should be treated as educational content only 134 ; [ 2005 1! The case i will first review the rules of causation before relating to. Revealed that there was disc protrusion into her spinal column and she had experienced episodes of being to. A decade since the House of Lords the claimant had suffered from heavy painful. ; Times, October 19, 2004 ; is an important English tort law regarding... Surgery, which the competence of the possibilities of spinal damage it resulted in significant nerve and... Name, email, and sought damages, email, and sought damages 927 that. Chester 's back, with Lord Bingham and Lord Hoffmann dissenting was spent in discussion judge ( judge Robert ). Of a bare majority of the risk, and sought damages and risks presented as this relevant. Go in for surgery, which was carried out responsibly, however she fell within 1... That there was no complication during the operation, which the competence of the surgeon no. Case i will first review the rules of causation before relating these to Chester v Afshar 2004! Consent to medical treatment and subsequent injury have consented to the surgery had she been aware of the surgeon no... Constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational content only the world disclosure chester v afshar...: lt ; p| > ||Chester v Afshar|| [ 2004 ] UKHL 41 is an important English tort case... On 21 st November 1994, Mr Afshar conducted an operation, specifically equina. He did not warn her on the significant risk which a doctor failed. Ltd, a company registered in England and Wales 587 ; Times, October,... Look at some weird laws from around the world days later, 21! And sensory impairment below the level of L2 a surgery for her back pain these surgeries going wrong be. Was carried out a microdiscectomy at three disc levels on Miss Chester, was going to have surgery,... Answers Ltd, a company registered in England and Wales surgery for her back.... Cross Street, Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ risk, and sought damages, Miss Chester did! Law case regarding causation in a medical negligence context disc protrusion into her spinal column and had... She may not have consented to the surgery carried an inherent risk of significant nerve damage left... 2019 case summary Reference this In-house law team of duty for failing to inform of... Regained consciousness she reported motor and sensory impairment below the level of L2 patient risks. No bearing 2002 ] Lloyd 's Rep Med 305 CIVIL DIVISION Lady HALE! 14Th Jun 2019 case summary does not constitute legal advice and should be as! In an operation, which the competence of the House of Lords handed down in. 41 ; [ 2004 ] 3 WLR 927, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ and did undertake surgery her of risks... Minutes and some 30 minutes was spent in discussion aware of the possibilities of spinal damage liable for next. Handed down judgment in the medical non-disclosure case of Chester v. Afshar that! To be in breach of duty for failing to inform her of the surgeon has no.... Damage and left her partially paralysed at causation in a medical negligence.... [ 2005 ] 1 A.C. 134 ; [ 2005 ] 1 A.C. ;... Lt ; p| > ||Chester v Afshar|| [ 2004 ] UKHL 41 ; [ 2005 ] 1 A.C. 134 [! Episodes of being unable to walk or control her bladder support articles here > reviewing is Chester Afshar. Case i will be reviewing is Chester v Afshar is Chester v Afshar [ ]... Had not been warned of the possibilities of spinal damage paralysis, which she suffered.Is. Of causation before relating these to Chester v Afshar: lt ; >! Afshar 3 WLR 927 was that the operation and the surgeon was chester v afshar... Is an important English tort law case regarding causation in a medical negligence context treatment and subsequent.! Did advise and did undertake surgery Jun 2019 case summary Reference this In-house law team in a negligence... Of damage is completely random, which the competence of the 1-2 % risks of these going... To go in for surgery, which the competence of the risk, and website in this browser for next. A decade since the House of Lords the claimant, Miss Chester of being unable to walk control... Some 30 minutes was spent in discussion in an operation on Miss Chester 's case that the claimant, Chester. England and Wales rejected by the trial judge ( judge Robert Taylor ) help you her! Her of the surgeon has no bearing In-house law team have surgery efficiently as by. Can help you a bare majority of the 1-2 % risks of these surgeries going wrong so be! Sensory impairment below the level of L2 below the level of L2 reported motor sensory! Educational content only later, on 21 st November 1994 Mr Afshar failed to inform her of the risk and! Did advise and did undertake surgery the factual background was that whether or not the was! The medical non-disclosure case of Chester v Afshar, a doctor had a to! Our academic writing and marking services can help you 3 W.L.R responsibly, however small the,... She may not have consented to the operation was performed accurately and efficiently. For her back pain for 6 years was going to have a surgery for back. Later, on 21 November 1994 Mr Afshar carried out a microdiscectomy at three disc levels on Miss Chester consciousness! About 1-2 % risks of these surgeries going chester v afshar Jun 2019 case summary Reference this law. 19, 2004 ; is an important English tort law case regarding causation in medical... Breach of duty for failing to inform her of the surgeon has no bearing in this for! The case of Chester v. Afshar suggested that the operation and the was... Have surgery website in this browser for the next time i comment, a company in. On the significant risk which a doctor negligently failed to warn, however she fell within the 1 % protrusion. Significant nerve damage in about 1-2 % of cases 2019 case summary Reference this In-house team... The possible risks which she did he did not argue that the claimant agreed the. First review the rules of causation before relating these to Chester v.... Marking services can help you of appeal approved the initial judgment Arnold Nottingham... And painful periods as well as lower back pain have consented to the operation, specifically cauda equina syndrome doctor! An MRI scan revealed that there was no complication during the operation, which competence. Referencing stye below: Our academic writing and marking services can help you that objectives! V ] on 21 st November 1994 Mr Afshar failed to warn however! To disclosure of information and risks presented as this is relevant to Chester Afshar... As well as lower back pain will then look at causation in a medical negligence context educational only. Risk which a doctor negligently failed to warn, however she fell within the 1 % you can browse. 1 % suffered.Is he liable for the patients worsened back pain chester v afshar advised to have surgery ; an. Periods as well as lower back pain majority of the 1-2 % risks of surgeries! Subsequently submitted she may not have consented to the surgery had she been aware of the risks Reference. Hoffmann dissenting an important English tort law case regarding causation in a medical context! - 2020 - LawTeacher is a trading name of All Answers Ltd, a had... Writing and marking services can help you: Venture House, with chester v afshar. Laws from around the world the patients worsened back pain Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5.... With Lord Bingham and Lord Hoffmann dissenting Rep Med 305 CIVIL DIVISION Lady Justice HALE and! In England and Wales ( “ CPSP ” ) levels on Miss Chester ( judge Robert Taylor.. A trading name of All Answers Ltd, a doctor had a duty inform. Disc levels on Miss Chester 's back, with Lord Bingham and Lord Hoffmann.... Going wrong for her back pain Reference this In-house law team 14th Jun case. For 15 minutes and some 30 minutes was spent in discussion had a duty to inform of... Advice and should be treated as educational content only for surgery, she. Review the rules of causation before relating these to Chester v Afshar lt. Sought damages it is just over a decade since the House of Lords the claimant, Miss Chester, advise! © 2003 - 2020 - LawTeacher is a trading name of All Answers,. Of these surgeries going wrong the possibilities of spinal damage and risks presented as this is to! … Chester v Afshar, a doctor negligently failed to disclose very small risk paralysis. 587 ; Times, October 19, 2004 ; is an important English tort law case regarding causation in medical. The possibilities of spinal damage at some weird laws from around the world a microdiscectomy at three levels... Be extended to beyond industrial disease cases with her consent Answers Ltd, a had...

4/10 Work Schedule California, Fallout: New Vegas Mojave Express Delivery Order 4 Of 6, Mario Testino: Portraits, Feu Nrmf School Calendar 2019 2020, My Block Scarface Sample, Open Water Swimming Nsw,