Cs are the wife and son respectively of A deceased. He died of lung cancer on 23 February 2023 at the tragically early age of 49. [1]
C maintain that an opportunity to intervene and treat A’s cancer was missed as a result of the negligence of his general practitioner, D. A saw D once, at an appointment on 11 February 2019. at the appointment, D requested a chest x-ray for A using the ICE system (Integrated Clinical Environment). A request for an x-ray made via the ICE system is not acted on unless and until a patient attends a walk-in radiology department. There is no follow up to the request either to the doctor or the patient. To make it happen therefore, a patient has to know both that the request has been made and what he has to do. It is alleged by C that D failed to tell A either that she had made the request or what he needed to do. D is clear that she would have told him about the fact that she was requesting one and given him the necessary information. Indeed, she accepts it would have been a breach of duty not to do so. In relation to causation, the C invite me to find that, if A had been given the necessary information, he would have had the x-ray. This is also disputed. [2]
The parties agree that, if an x-ray had been done, it would have shown an abnormality and a CT scan would have been recommended. This would have led to treatment for cancer. C argue that it is likely that that treatment would have been successful. D does not accept that earlier identification would have altered the progress of the cancer. [3]
On 7 July 2025 Deputy Master Skinner ordered the trial of three preliminary issues,
a. Did the D fail to tell/inform A that a chest x-ray was required and/or that A needed to attend the local walk-in radiology department in order for the chest x-ray to be carried out;
b. If the court finds that A was not told and/or informed about the chest x-ray and/or that A needed to attend the local walk-in radiology department in order for the chest x-ray to be carried out, whether A would have attended for a chest x-ray had he been so informed;
c. Contributory negligence as pleaded.
This is the trial of those preliminary issues which do not include causation. [4]
My findings on the preliminary issues are therefore those set out below:
a) D failed to tell/inform the deceased that a chest x-ray was required and that he needed to attend the local walk-in radiology department in order for the chest x-ray to be carried out;
b) A would have attended for a chest x-ray had he been so informed;
c) A was not contributorily negligent. [40]
medicalnegligencenow.com 