The application was for a stay until 2 months after the Claimant has been examined by the Defendants’ neurosurgical expert. [1]
The application was drafted on the basis that the medical expert’s examination was required so that he could finalise his opinion on causation and the Defences be drafted. It was asserted that “cauda equina cases are a good example of the frequent interplay in clinical negligence claims between “medical causation” and independent medical assessment of the Claimant on condition & prognosis. As in this case, there are frequently pre-existing conditions or co-morbidities to be considered”. [2]
the Defendants will have a fair opportunity to complete their Defences now on the basis of evidence usually available at this juncture, and for their expert to conclude their reporting in the normal way following an examination, without the court needing to order an early examination. [32]
Accordingly the application is dismissed. [33]
medicalnegligencenow.com 