However, I cannot accept Mr Wake and Ms Hastie’s assertion that they had not seen those documents before the trial and that they were produced by the previous solicitor’s consideration of the medical records and Mr Wake’s complaints correspondence, supplemented by a short consultation with them. It is important to note that the draft statements of Mr Wake and Ms Hastie were not signed.Clearly there were considerable difficulties in making out a claim against Drs Cliff and McNulty on the basis of the aetiology of pneumococcal meningitis, as the earlier report of Dr Conway noted, as it was unlikely that a disease, generally characterised by a rapid onset, had, in Ethan’s case, been causing symptoms since early December 2009. Neither Mr Wake nor Ms Hastie had any explanation why key passages are omitted from earlier written accounts.Initially, Ms Hastie said in her oral evidence that she had told Dr Johnson about the unusual screaming in the consultation on 1 January 2010 but when it was pointed out to her that that this had not been mentioned in her witness statement, she told me that she could have been mistaken about the screaming and later she said to me that she could not recall telling Dr Johnson about screaming. It was in the served witness statements that all these features appeared together. They give an account of a single continuing and worsening illness from early December 2009 until 2 January 2010, and in those statements, there was no description of Ethan struggling, crying, or screaming during Dr Johnson’s examination. The draft statements contain more dramatic descriptions of how Ethan appeared at the consultations with Drs McNulty and Cliff on 2 and 18 December 2009. The original draft statements appear to have been produced in August 2011 at a time when claims against Drs McNulty and Cliff were contemplated, as I was told by Mr Spencer QC on the second day of trial, although Ms Hastie said in evidence that she know nothing of this.Some but not all of these further features were referred to in the letter before action dated. Elements have been added to the account of Ethan’s state when seen by Dr Johnson and what Dr Johnson was told paleness, vomiting bile, unresponsiveness, not eating anything at all since a small amount of Weetabix on the morning of 31 December 2009, vomiting even sips of water, screaming at the examination.Mr Wake’s further letter of 16 April 2010 in reply to a letter from GatDoc sought to correct aspects of GatDoc’s letter and repeated the above list of symptoms, but did not add to the list, nor did his letter of 15 April 2010, replying to a letter from Gateshead Primary Care Trust. ‘ Ethan had a high temperature, was suffering from severe headaches (progressively worse over five days), had a fever, some aches and pains around the body, was vomiting and not eating much, no energy and a lot more sleepy than usual‘. Mr Wake’s original letter of complaint dated 31 March 2010 to GatDoc noted that he and Ethan’s mother had explained their concerns to Dr Johnson about Ethan as follows: What is certain on the evidence before me is the fact that the accounts given by Mr Wake and Ms Hastie have not been consistent.I t is suggested that their evidence may be affected by their knowledge of the outcome in Ethan’s case and that the events surrounding Ethan’s development of meningitis will have been much discussed before and after the commencement of litigation.However, Ethan’s illness and the events surrounding it were momentous events in the lives of his parents and they would have good reason for those events to be etched in their minds. The general point is made in respect of the evidence of Ethan’s parents as to the consultation, that their recollection, unlike that of Dr Johnson, is not supported by contemporaneous notes.There are dangers with witnesses looking back at matters with the benefit of hindsight.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |