RP v Duncan

(FIRST) DR JANICE A DUNCAN, DR J S BUMBRA, DR K J THOMPSON, and DR A CROSBY, and (SECOND) DR PAULINE FLEMING,

[1] The pursuer in this action seeks damages on behalf of her son, RP, who was born on 7 August 1997. The case came before me for a hearing on the procedure roll on 2 November 2012, on the first defenders' motion. Counsel for the first defenders sought dismissal of the action, insofar as laid against them, arguing that it is irrelevant.

[4] By letter, dated 20 January 1997, the second defender referred the pursuer to the Victoria Hospital in Kirkcaldy for an endocrine opinion. The pursuer was referred on to the Royal Infirmary in Edinburgh, where radioactive iodine was administered to her. Radioactive iodine was again administered to her at the Royal Infirmary on 27 February 1997. The pursuer still continued to feel nauseous despite the treatment, and it was subsequently discovered that she was pregnant and, in due course, she gave birth to RP.

The issue [6] Mr McGregor, who appeared for the first defenders, submitted that the facts and circumstances of the case as averred by the pursuer fail to reveal any causal connection between the alleged acts and omissions of these defenders and RP's loss, injury and damage.

[10] Mr McGregor took issue with the pursuer's averment that the first defenders' failure lay in not having what is described in the pleadings as "robust systems" in place, whereby the urine sample would have been sent for the correct test and, in the event that the sample was sent off for the wrong test, for noting that the correct test had not been carried out and advising the patient accordingly. He questioned how the existence of such "robust systems" would have affected what the second defender told the pursuer on 14 January.