Full recovery – Just and fair?

Abstract

In the case of Ingram v Williams [2010] EWHC 758 (QB) 13/4/2010, (2010) Med LR 255 Walker J rejected the evidence of the claimant's parents that his mother had suffered a significant loss of liquid before she attended her GP on 29 July 1983, when cystitis was diagnosed. The claimant was born prematurely on 3 August 1983 at the home of his parents, when his mother's pregnancy was 24 weeks. The expert evidence was that had the claimant's mother been admitted to hospital on 29 July 1983, the claimant would have been born prematurely with peri-ventricular leukomalacia. The difference would have been that a paediatrician would have been present at birth, with the consequence that he would have avoided a period of hypoxia. The experts were agreed that the claimant would have been born with a material but unquantifiable reduction in his disability. After a fully argued oral hearing, the Court of Appeal refused to grant permission to the claimant for permission to appeal where the trial judge had been able to assess the strength of the oral evidence in reaching his findings of fact. Because permission was not granted, the opportunity of arguing before the Court of Appeal whether a claimant should be entitled to recover in full where severely disabled in any event, will await another case.