C was born in November 2014. He was a happy and healthy baby. On or about New Year’s Eve that year, he suffered head injuries as a result of physical abuse caused by his own mother. She didn’t tell anyone about what she had done. [2]
He was admitted to Yeovil District Hospital (“Yeovil”) on 6 January 2015. He presented with a history of projectile vomiting and, in comparison with other babies of his age, his weight was falling behind. Other features included a history of irritability with poor head and neck control together with a marked increase in percentile head circumference measurements over the preceding weeks. [3]
It is now common ground, however, that at that stage his case raised no suspicion of abuse and that those responsible for his treatment cannot be criticised because they did not flag up abuse to be a possible explanation for his presentation. [4]
Initially, the favoured diagnosis was of pyloric stenosis. [5]
On Friday 9 January 2015, Sidney was transferred to Bristol Children’s Hospital (“Bristol”) where an ultrasound test for pyloric stenosis provided no convincing evidence in support of this diagnosis. Further, save for the history of increased measurements in head circumference in comparison with babies of the same age, all of the other presenting complaints had fully resolved. Accordingly, he was discharged home on Saturday 10 January. The intention was that his head measurements would be kept under review by the health visitor. [6]
However, on the very next day, his mother assaulted baby Sidney again as a result of which he suffered catastrophic brain injuries. [7]
Sidney’s father and litigation friend alleges on his behalf that it was negligent merely to plan to keep Sidney’s head measurements under review but that an ultrasound scan (“USS”) of his head should have been carried out very promptly. It is not disputed that, had such a scan been carried out before his discharge, it would have revealed the fact that Sidney had probably sustained trauma to the head. This would have led to a chain of enquiry which would have engaged procedures which, in turn, would have operated to deprive his mother of the opportunity thereafter to abuse her baby son for a second time. It is also agreed that the entirety of Sidney’s ongoing disabilities relate to the consequences of the second attack. [8]
It is contended on behalf of Sidney that it was negligent to fail very promptly to perform an USS of his head. D denies it. [9]
This is a tragic case. A young life has been irredeemably blighted. However, the injuries inflicted upon Sidney by his mother did not in a legal sense fall within the scope of the duty owed to him by the defendants and, in any event, their treatment of him did not fall short of the standard required of medical paediatricians. Accordingly, this claim must fail. [57]
medicalnegligencenow.com 