‘XXX’ was born at the Princess Royal University Hospital in Orpington, Kent, on 22 November 2011. (paragraph 2)
After XXX was born it was discovered that he possessed a chromosomal abnormality called a ’22q11.2 deletion’ (otherwise known as DiGeorge syndrome). (paragraph 3)
Had his mother had an amniocentesis, the chromosomal abnormality would have been revealed. It is accepted that she would have received advice about the consequences of the abnormality and that it would have been at a time when the possibility of a termination of pregnancy would have been offered. Her case is that she would have opted for a termination. (paragraph 4)
She underwent a routine 20-week ultrasound fetal anomaly scan at the hospital on 7 July 2011… It is common ground that the fetus at that stage would have possessed an abnormal heart structure that, if identified, would have led to a fetal echocardiogram and an offer of an amniocentesis. (paragraph 5)
The primary issue in the case is… essentially reported that the scan was normal, negligently missed the abnormality that existed and thus failed to refer XXX’s mother on for further investigation. There is a secondary issue, namely, whether, as she alleges, XXX’s mother would have opted for a termination when told of the potential consequences of the chromosomal abnormality. (paragraph 6)
…the conclusion must be that the scan was not carried out to the required standards of the time. (paragraph 110)
…I accept, on the balance of probabilities, that they would have opted for a termination. (paragraph 116)
…the Claimants have established the case advanced on the basis of breach of duty and causation and judgment must be entered for damages to be assessed. (paragraph 117)
medicalnegligencenow.com 