#cases #clinical-negligence #negligence #tort

Maynard v West Midlands Regional Health Authority [1984] 1 WLR 634

Facts: The plaintiff contracted an illness, the most likely diagnosis for which was held, according to the two consultants concerned, to be one of two things, either tuberculosis (the most likely) or Hodgkin’s disease. Because Hodgkin's disease was fatal unless remedial steps were taken in its early stages, the consultants decided that, rather than await the result of a sputum test, which would involve some weeks' delay, the operation of mediastinoscopy should be performed. Mediastinoscopy involved a risk of damage to the left laryngeal recurrent nerve even if properly performed and that damage did in fact occur. It was subsequently confirmed that the plaintiff was suffering from tuberculosis and not Hodgkin's disease. The plaintiff brought an action against the defendant health authority, claiming that the decision to carry out the mediastinoscopy rather than await the result of the sputum test had been negligent. At the trial, a distinguished body of expert medical opinion was called approving of the action of the consultants in carrying out the operation, but the judge found for the plaintiff. The Court of Appeal reversed his decision.