On 19 April 2013 C aged 71, suffered a transient ischaemic attack… C is now paralysed down the right side of his body [1]
D has admitted that it breached the duty of care owed… by failing to offer thrombolysis medication to him on 19 April 2013. [2]
…what would have happened if C had had the benefit of thrombolysis when his condition deteriorated on 19 April 2013. In dealing with that issue epidemiological evidence is of real value as is evidence from medical experts. [3]
… did the failure to treat C cause injury? To put it another way, on the balance of probabilities would the appropriate administration of thrombolysis have led to a better outcome for C? [5]
D says that even if C had been thrombolysed in a timely fashion there is no more than an approximate 30% chance that he would have been in better health today. As the law does not allow for compensation to be awarded in tort for loss of a chance, and as C’s prospects of a better outcome are less than 51% D says the claim should fail. [6]
…on the balance of probabilities that had C been thrombolysed at 2.15pm on 19 April 2013 he would have recovered to his prestroke position with a GCS of 15 (as recorded at 1.30pm) being orientated, able to obey commands and open his eyes spontaneously. [106]
medicalnegligencenow.com 