C has brought proceedings against D1 and D2 arising from their failure to treat promptly symptoms of cauda equina syndrome during the summer of 2017. [1]
C’s case that her condition throughout required being treated as an emergency. Ds argue that the position was no more than urgent and that consequently waiting a matter of weeks was appropriate or at least within the relevant band of reasonableness. Central to Ds’ contention was the lack of any radiological evidence confirming compression of the cauda equina. They argue that without such evidence emergency surgery would not have been undertaken at any venue. If emergency surgery was envisaged then in all likelihood… the emergency team to take a patient then radiological evidence justifying such action would have to be available and here it is not. [7]
C’s reported recovery from symptoms after surgery in November 2017. Such recovery, it is argued by Ds, is inconsistent with compressive damage to the cauda equina. C counter such argument regarding medical causation with reference to what they identify as objective evidence of nerve injury from both urological and colorectal experts. [8]
C fails to establish either breach of duty or medical causation. [124]
