-
Views
-
Cite
Cite
Angelikar Reichstein, Case Comment—Webster V Burton Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Medical Law Review, Volume 25, Issue 4, Autumn 2017, Pages 654–661, https://doi.org/10.1093/medlaw/fwx035
Close - Share Icon Share
Extract
THE FACTS
On 13 February 2017, the Court of Appeal handed down its judgment in Webster v Burton Hospital NHS Foundation Trust.1 The appellant is a 14-year-old boy—represented by his mother—who was born in 2003 with cerebral palsy, suffering physical and cognitive impairment. It is uncontested that these disabilities occurred 2–3 days prior to his birth and could have been avoided by an earlier delivery. The disabilities were caused by a short period of cord compression, that, had it lasted longer, would have resulted in his death. Initially the pregnancy—the mother’s first—was uncomplicated, the scan at 20 weeks was within normal limits but showed a low-lying placenta, and a note was made to have another scan at Week 34. The following scan assuaged the concerns regarding the position of the placenta but revealed other concerns: the foetus was small for its gestational age and there was an asymmetry between the head circumference and the abdominal circumference. Moreover, there was an excess in amniotic fluid. A further note was made to have a review after 41 weeks with a view to induction, as was recommended by the relevant guidelines.2 However, the treating Obstetrician and Gynaecologist, Mr Hollingworth, did not note the smallness of the foetus, the recorded asymmetry, or the excess of amniotic fluid, but treated the pregnancy as being without these anomalies. There is no doubt that the doctor had acted negligently in not arranging further ultrasound scanning based on the foetus being small for gestational age.3 A day before the expected delivery, on 26 December 2002, Ms Butler went into hospital feeling unwell. The next day she was seen by Mr Hollingworth, who recorded that she felt well. According to Ms Butler’s evidence she did indeed feel a little better but assumed that labour would be induced based on her feeling unwell and it being her due date. This was, however, not the case and instead Ms Butler was induced on 7 January 2003, which led to the birth of the appellant.
