“…C underwent spinal surgery… a lumbar microdiscectomy. The claimant’s contention is that she ought not to have had that operation, and as a consequence of having undergone the operation she has sustained consequential injury and loss…” (paragraph 1)
“There is no suggestion that the operation itself was conducted negligently…” (paragraph 3)
The case concerned advice and consent – disputes of fact.
“…I am satisfied that the claimant’s consent was properly obtained for the purposes of the lumbar microdiscectomy and that the decision to undertake that surgery did not give rise to any breach of duty…” (paragraph 92)
Note: The court referred to Bolam, Sidaway, and Bolitho (paragraphs 60 and 61); there was not reference to Montgomery.
medicalnegligencenow.com 