Dickinson v Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] EWHC 1574 (KB) (29 June 2026)

Dickinson v Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] EWHC 1574 (KB) (29 June 2026)

C now a 47 year old man who has developed Functional Neurological Disorder (“FND”) and Functional Cognitive Disorder (“FCD”) and a depressive disorder. [1]

The issue in this case is how C came to have those conditions and whether they are related to D’s admitted breach of duty. It is accepted by D that when C was admitted for treatment of a facial lesion, in August 2016, D failed to administer a course of prophylactic Thiamine (Vitamin B1) in the form of Pabrinex, given he was a known alcoholic being treated with Chlordiazepoxide for symptoms of withdrawal from alcohol. [2]

C’s case is that D’s breach caused him to develop Thiamine deficiency which caused a Wernicke’s Encephalopathy (“WE”), and then a disabling functional disorder affecting him physically and cognitively, and giving rise to major reactive depression. [3]

D does not materially dispute C’s current condition but denies causation. Its case is that the symptoms arose coincidentally or more likely were pre-existing, but worsened markedly, albeit unrelated to the failure to administer Thiamine. As part of that denial, D also disputes the notion that the C ever developed WE. [4]

C’s date of birth is 19 June 1979, hence he was aged 37 years at the relevant time and by the time of trial was aged 46 years. Prior to the events in question, his medical history was characterised by long-standing poor mental health, chronic alcoholism, spinal surgery in 2006, surgery to the right knee in 2011 and some left leg symptoms, the aetiology of which was not definitively established at the time. [5]

What caused the development of the functional disorder and would it have been avoided with the proper administration of Pabrinex? It was caused by the significant stressor outlined in the preceding sub-paragraph and it would have been avoided by the proper administration of Pabrinex. The timing was not merely a coincidence or a milestone on an inexorable process of an allostatic load. The episode of WE and effect on C was the cause of his FNSD on a balance of probabilities. [257h]

It follows that, in my judgement, but for the admitted breach of duty, C would not have developed the functional disorder and liability is established. [258]