C asserts that D breached its duty of care to her by failing to identify Cauda Equina Syndrome (“CES”) during the radiological review of an MRI scan on June 6, 2017. [2]
C alleges that she suffered from CES with bladder and sensory issues on June 6, 2017. She claims that the MRI scan performed on that day was misread as showing only mild spinal canal narrowing (stenosis) and that the reporting radiologist failed to identify significant cauda equina compression. [7]
D denies any breach of duty in relation to the MRI report, arguing that C did not have CES. As a consequence urgent surgery was not necessary but even with hypothetical surgery by June 7, 2017, C’s condition and prognosis would not have improved. [9]
There are essentially two key issues:
i) Did C have CES, or was the initial MRI report (mild stenosis) accurate and/or reasonably reported?
ii) Would timely surgery (following, on C’s case, a correct diagnosis) have improved C’s outcome? [10]
there is no radiological evidence of cauda equina compression. Since it was not there to be found the fact that it was not identified represents an accurate assessment of the scan and not a breach of duty. [125]
C has not established that there was any breach of duty [128]
medicalnegligencenow.com 