C is now aged 25 years old having been born on 14 October 1998. She brings this action for damages for personal injury arising from the alleged negligent delay in her delivery… between 28 September 1998 and 14 October 1998… C has only mild motor problems but her cognitive and behavioural difficulties are complex and extensive. [1]
C’s case that the onset of the chronic partial hypoxia was no earlier than around three days before her birth: that is, no earlier than 11 October 1998 and that it persisted until her resuscitation very shortly after her birth… on C’s case, had the delivery taken place before 11 October, C would have been spared the brain damaging effects of the chronic partial hypoxia and would be neurologically intact. Whilst not disputing the likelihood of a period of perinatal partial hypoxia, D asserts that the effect of the hypoxia was not brain damaging and C’s current neurological condition is likely to be genetic in origin. Earlier delivery would not therefore have altered the claimant’s neurological condition. [16]
The cause of C’s current condition and disability is not a matter for determination at this trial… [preliminary issue] the breach of duty issue should be read as whether C should have been delivered before 11 October 1998. This involves consideration of breach of duty issues and some aspects of the case on causation. [17]
C’s case focusses upon the obstetric management on 28 September 1998 when [mother] attended the hospital complaining of a history of leaking per vaginam [18]
D denies breach of duty [22]
Reasonable management mandated induction of labour on or around 29 September 1998 [86]
These findings are determinative of the claim. [87]
medicalnegligencenow.com 