Logged out
Access All our Essays in an Instant
Swap your work for FREE access, or pay £4.99 for instant access
Gregg v Scott decision of the House of Lords
Member rating: No Rating | Words: 1800 | Submitted: Wed Dec 26 2007
Page Preview
On the left is an image preview of every page of this document, and below are the first 150 words with formatting removed:
Introduction In the context of clinical negligence is it possible to claim damages for a lost opportunity of gaining a more favourable outcome, even though the chances of the better outcome are only a statistical probability which may be less than 50%. In Gregg v Scott the first instance judge said no, and the Court of Appeal reluctantly agreed [i] . The matter came before the House of Lords in May 2004 and their judgement has been keenly awaited by all those involved in the practice and insurance of clinical specialisms. That judgement was delivered earlier today. Mr Gregg has failed in his appeal. Background The defendant General Practitioner of the claimant was found negligent for a delay in the diagnosis of a tumour. The established consequences of this delay was that the tumour grew, and invaded more tissue, progressing from type I to type II, causing more pain. Consequently...
To see the full version of this document, and 144,847 others
