Where a claimant settles a claim for personal injuries during their lifetime, does that prevent his dependants from bringing a clinical negligence claim against a concurrent tortfeasor after his death? That is the issue that the Court is dealing with in this case. D argues that it does and thus Court should strike out the present claim or, in the alternative, enter summary judgment. C argues that it does not and, if I decide I am bound by previous authorities on the point, those previous authorities were wrongly decided.[1]
The Deceased, born on 18 September 1944, underwent a mitral and tricuspid heart valve repair at D’s hospital on 12 March 2015… During this procedure, he is believed to have contracted Mycobacterium Chimaera (“MC”) mitral valve endocarditis from a contaminated heater cooler unit, which was manufactured by [the Company] and which was used by D. [3]
The claim was advanced as a product liability claim [against the Company] [6]
Settlement in the sum of £250,000 damages plus £20,000 costs was thereafter agreed [with the Company] [11]
On 28 October 2022 the Deceased sadly died… C argues that during the inquest process, a number of failings came to light in relation to the care provided to the Deceased by D and other healthcare professionals. C argues that, but for the failures on behalf of D, the Deceased would have survived a further two years than he did, and his pain and suffering would have been ameliorated earlier. [12]
a dependant is prevented from pursuing a claim under the FAA where a claimant has settled a claim ‘in life’ for the same damage that forms the basis of the claim under the FAA unless the claimant did not receive full satisfaction of their claim by that in life settlement. [59]
…whilst a settlement against one tortfeasor does not automatically extinguish a claim against a concurrent tortfeasor, the Court still must consider whether the claimant received full satisfaction for his loss within the settlement reached with the first tortfeasor. This is not a forensic exercise in counting pounds and pence but instead must look at the factual matrix of the settlement reached… [64]
…the Deceased obtained full satisfaction for the tort within his lifetime and therefore would not have been able to maintain an action against D during his lifetime, as any further action would have been seeking losses that he had already been compensated for by the Company and thus any claim against D would have amounted to double recovery and would have been liable to be struck out due to the want of recoverable damage. [69]
…either striking out the claim for failing to disclose a valid cause of action or entering summary judgment may be permissible… if I strike the case out, C will be liable to pay D’s costs, and the D will be able to enforce those costs against C. If I enter summary judgment, Cl will be liable for D’s costs, but D will not be able to enforce them. [72]
“The principle of finality requires that there must be an end to litigation”. That is as apposite in the present case… [74]
summary judgment in favour of D on the claim as it discloses no reasonable prospects of success given the absence of quantifiable loss. [75]
medicalnegligencenow.com 