C applies for permission to bring proceedings for contempt of court against D1 and her mother D2. [1]
C’s allegations of contempt arise out of a clinical negligence claim brought by D1. The clinical negligence claim came to an end in late 2022 when D1 filed a Notice of Discontinuance following the service by C of video surveillance of both the D1 and D2. Thereafter C made an application under for a finding that the claim was fundamentally dishonest. [2]
D1 had a history of low back pain and discogenic problems and symptoms and on 2 September 2014 D1 underwent decompression surgery. [14]
On 10 August 2016 D1 attended C hospital. D1 presented with a history of numbness in her right leg and back pain. She was discharged home with a letter to her GP and a plan for a non-emergency MRI for the following morning. However, the MRI carried out the next day showed disc protrusion causing compression of the cauda equina and of the S1 nerve root. D1 was thereafter underwent decompression surgery. [15]
Following that surgery the D1 continued to complain of pain, bladder and bowel problems, weakness and pain in her legs and disability. D1alleged that these symptoms were avoidable and were attributable to a negligent delay in diagnosis and treatment by C. [16]
D1 issued a claim form [17]
C served its Defence to the clinical negligence claim. It admitted breach of duty, specifically that D1 should have undergone MRI scanning on 10 August 2016 and admitted that D1nt would have proceeded to emergency decompression after the scan. C put in issue the extent to which the admitted delay caused any deterioration in symptoms. [19]
D1 attended various appointments with experts. C alleges that on each occasion when D2 accompanied D1 “the Second Defendant witnessed, encouraged, aided and explicitly or implicitly supported the First Defendant’s false and grossly exaggerated display of disability” [20]
D1 accepted that she had been fundamentally dishonest [29]
permission should be granted to C to bring committal proceedings against D2 in relation to the false statement grounds. Those proceedings will be heard alongside those against D1 who has accepted that permission should be given. [74]
medicalnegligencenow.com 