[Draft]

[Name]

[Name of Institution]

Question 1

Patricia seeks to establish whether she could take any legal action after getting the information that she has uterine leiomyosarcoma. She is developing plans to file a suit against the NHS on a negligence ground. She also questions whether there would be any possibility of claiming even a single penny after her demise, before even attempting to resort to any kind of legal remedies.

The possible claim, which derives from Patricia, would be based on medical negligence, i.e., a missed diagnosis of uterine leiomyosarcoma so that the results of the treatment could have been better. The general standard in matters medicine even more certainly those dealing with cancer the expected level of care is quite high. In terms of results, delays at the diagnosis level have the capacity to heighten the situation by drastically reducing prognosis and treatment options.

Negligence requires a duty of care, a violation of that duty of care, real harm to an individual or their property, and a causal relationship between the two. All of these must be present for a tort claim to be successful, but before anything else, the injured party must determine if the defendant owed them any duty of care.[1] Legally acknowledged responsibilities and inferred duties are the two main categories of duty of care. In situations where no legal need to exercise care has been established, the foreseeable claimant test is used. The Palsgraff Case established that an individual should not be held liable for unforeseeable consequences of their actions. In other words, a plaintiff does not have a duty to care for an injured party if they are not among a reasonably foreseeable group of people who could be impacted by their actions.[2] The Bourhill decision upheld this concept, holding that although the injuries of a motorist were reasonably foreseeable, those of a pedestrian or bicyclist were not. The burden of proof is on the plaintiff in a clinical negligence lawsuit to show that the defendant's actions were negligent and did not meet the necessary level of care.  As stated by McNair J in Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 2 ALL ER 118, the standard of care that is applied to the medical sectors, it is not possible to hold a doctor negligent if he can show that his actions were approved by the appropriate medical organisation.[3] Cases like Montgomery v. Lanarkshire Health Board (2015) and Chester vs. Afshar (2004) served to clarify the law when it came to not informing patients about the hazards of certain operations. There was an argument that the patient suffered harm as a result of the surgery since the physician withheld information that would have allowed them to make an educated choice.

The argument within Patricia’s problem has multiple fronts. Firstly, the identified duty of care breach was the time lapse used to determine uterine leiomyomasarcoma from benign fibroids. Secondly, some diagnostic errors might have been made because Patricia opted to collect her personal medical records to find that the disease triggered the hip bone, the liver, and the lung cancer. Such information will be critical to assessing whether the delayed diagnosis contributed to the disease formation; just important steps. Aside from the negative prognosis due to the delayed diagnosis, the treatment options presented to Patricia were quite limited.

Uttermost uncommon and deadly malignancy, uterine leiomyosarcoma, whose diagnosis is most likely the foundation of Patricia’s potential claim, cases that she never received her treatment due to her medical team’s negligence. The seriousness of the failure to act with reasonable caution might have also led to the first misdiagnosis of early benign fibroids. Failure or any delay to treat uterine leiomyosarcoma can reach critical stage, which puts a threat to the life of patients.

In case of Patricia, the delay prevented treatment of the cancer, so that it could develop and spread further. However, the health care professional should always make sure to meticulously consider all related information and under certain conditions request further tests or consultations. If care was not taken, then this implies there was a breach of duty of care. A case of medical negligence requires that causality be supported with some hard evidence.[4] In 2015, Patricia found that the cancer had spread to her lungs, hip bone, liver and her medical ledgers. This adds more evidence that the disease might have spread more aggressively as a result of the delayed diagnosis and a thorough assessment.

At this point, this information will be critical in ascertaining if the delayed diagnosis aided the development of the disease. Aside from the negative prognosis due to the delayed diagnosis, the treatment options presented to Patricia were quite limited. The failure to diagnose uterine leiomyosarcoma, a rare and deadly type of cancer, may be the basis of Patricia’s putative claim. The seriousness of the failure to act with reasonable caution might have also led to the first misdiagnosis of early benign fibroids. Failure or any delay to treat uterine leiomyosarcoma can reach critical stage, which puts a threat to the life of patients.

In case of Patricia, the delay prevented treatment of the cancer, so it developed and spread further. The presence of multiple cysts on her liver, as recorded in her health documents, raises questions about the backlog of red flags which might have provoked an in-depth investigation. However, the health care professional should always make sure to meticulously consider all related information and under certain conditions request further tests or consultations. If care was not taken, then this implies there was a breach of duty of care.

A case of medical negligence requires that causality be supported with some hard evidence. Patricia found out that the cancer had developed to the stage of affecting her lungs, hip bone, liver, and medical records. This corroborates the fact that the rate of spread of the disease may have occurred at a much faster pace than it was as a result of the late diagnosis. In order to provide evidence that Patricia is now experiencing adverse reactions because of the delayed diagnosis, medical witnesses might be needed.

References

Primary Soures

Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 2 ALL ER 118

Bull v Devon Area Health Authority [1993] 4 Med LR 117

Sidaway v Board of Governors of the Bethlehem Royal Hospital & the Maudsley Hospital [1985] AC 871

Secondary Sources

Brazier, Margaret, Emma Cave, and Rob Heywood. "Medicine, patients and the law." Medicine, patients and the law. Manchester University Press, 2023.