EXP v Barker [2015] EWHC 1289 (QB) [7 May 2015]

In 1999 Claimant experienced visual disturbance and had brain MRI to consider demyelinating disease. It was reported as normal.

In 2011 Claimant collapsed due to right cerebral bleed from aneurysm. The issue was whether the aneurysm was present in the 1999 images and if there was a negligent failure to report it.

The court found for Claimant.

In a case involving highly specialist experts they may have had previous professional contact with Defendant. The court reviewed the law on how this should be approached – by weight rather than admissability.

“Where the core issue in a case turns, as it does here, on the court‟s ability to evaluate the competing and finely balanced medical judgements of rival experts, the court‟s confidence in the independence and impartiality of the respective experts must play an important role. I have to say, with considerable regret, that by reason of the matters set out earlier in this judgment my confidence in Dr Molyneux‟s independence and objectivity has been very substantially undermined.” (paragraph 73)