Mr Daniel Watts vs North Bristol NHS Trust

Introduction

The High Court, presided over by The Hon. Mr Justice Bourne, delivered a judgment dismissing the appeal of Mr Daniel Watts against North Bristol NHS Trust. The case centred on allegations of clinical negligence related to informed consent and surgical outcomes.

Background

Mr Watts, the appellant, had initially brought a claim against the North Bristol NHS Trust, alleging negligence by a consultant orthopaedic spinal surgeon, Mr Katsimihas. The surgeon had performed spinal fusion surgery on Mr Watts in April 2014, which unfortunately resulted in worsened pain and mobility issues.

Claim Details

Mr Watts claimed that Mr Katsimihas failed to obtain informed consent by not adequately discussing alternative procedures, specifically a microdiscectomy. He argued that, had he been properly informed, he would have opted for the less invasive procedure, potentially avoiding the adverse outcomes of the spinal fusion.

Judicial Findings

In the original trial, the court found in favour of Mr Watts on the issue of informed consent, acknowledging the surgeon's failure to present reasonable alternatives. However, the court dismissed the claim on causation grounds, concluding that Mr Watts had not sufficiently proven he would have chosen the alternative procedure.

Appeal Grounds

Mr Watts appealed the decision on two grounds: firstly, challenging the rejection of his evidence regarding his hypothetical choice of surgery, and secondly, contesting the conclusion that he would not have been better off with a microdiscectomy.

Appeal Judgment

Justice Bourne upheld the lower court's decision, emphasizing the difficulty in assessing hypothetical decisions post-outcome and the lack of persuasive evidence from Mr Watts. The judgment noted the absence of a clear explanation for why Mr Watts would have rejected the surgeon's strong recommendation for spinal fusion.

Analysis of Causation

The court also addressed the causation issue, concluding that the evidence did not support a finding that Mr Watts would have experienced a better outcome with a microdiscectomy. The expert testimony indicated that the risks of continued or worsened pain were present with both surgical options.

Conclusion

The appeal was dismissed, reaffirming the original judgment's findings. The case highlights the complexities involved in clinical negligence claims, particularly those concerning informed consent and causation.

Learn More

For more information on medical negligence, see BeCivil's guide to Medical Negligence.

Copyright & permissions