Prescott-Brann vs Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust

Introduction

The High Court has allowed an appeal in the case of Alan Prescott-Brann against Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and Dr. Shiva Koteeswaran. The appeal concerned the refusal of permission to rely on an alternative neurology expert in a medical negligence claim.

Background

Alan Prescott-Brann, the appellant, attended West Middlesex Hospital in June 2014, where a CT scan was reported as normal by Dr. Koteeswaran. He was discharged with a migraine diagnosis but suffered a stroke shortly thereafter. The appellant alleged negligent delay in diagnosis and treatment, leading to further neurological injury. Both respondents admitted breaches of duty but denied causation of injury.

Legal Framework

The appeal focused on whether the lower court's decision to refuse a change of expert was wrong. The court considered principles from previous rulings, including the discretion to allow expert substitution and the need to prevent expert shopping.

Procedural History

The case has a complex procedural history, with multiple applications for expert evidence and trial adjournments. The appellant initially sought to rely on a new neuroradiology expert, which was permitted, but faced challenges in replacing the neurology expert.

Master Eastman's Decision

Master Eastman refused the application to substitute the neurology expert, citing lateness and concerns over expert shopping. He concluded that the new expert's report did not significantly aid the appellant's case.

Grounds of Appeal

The appellant argued that the Master was wrong in his assessment of the expert's support for the case and failed to consider relevant expert opinions. The appeal also highlighted procedural fairness issues.

Expert Evidence

The appeal court examined the expert evidence, particularly the opinions of Dr. Chandratheva, who supported the appellant's case regarding further thromboembolic events. The court found that the Master had misattributed certain opinions and that the new expert's evidence was relevant.

Conclusion

The High Court concluded that the appellant demonstrated a valid reason for changing experts and that the substitution would not prejudice the respondents. The appeal was allowed, permitting reliance on the new expert evidence.

Learn More

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

Copyright & permissions