Philipa Hodgson v Dr Daniel Hammond & Anor [2025] EWHC 1261 (KB)

 

Summary

The claimant brought a clinical negligence claim against two general practitioners alleging that they failed to act on a potential diagnosis of pelvic inflammatory disease. The judge found that one of the GP experts had trespassed on the judicial function to determine the facts and had sought to advocate on behalf of the second defendant.

Learning points

Learning points for experts:

• Avoid trespassing on the judicial function to determine the facts.

• Never risk undermining your independence by seeking to advocate on the behalf of your instructing party.

• Make sure that you review the medical notes thoroughly and return to them to check against any other information.

• If you have made errors which come to light during cross-examination, it is better to candidly acknowledge them rather than try to argue your way out of them.

• Errors may not fatally undermine your evidence if your evidence is otherwise careful, cogent, logical and independent.

• The CV attached to your report should provide sufficient details about your professional qualifications and experience, and your medico-legal training, to enable the parties and the judge to establish that you have sufficient expertise.

• Be prepared to elaborate on your experience and expertise during cross-examination if that is required.

Learning points for instructing parties:

• If you wish to criticise the sufficiency of an expert’s expertise and experience make sure you do so during cross-examination when the expert has an opportunity to respond.

To continue reading you must be an EWI member, become a member and access exclusive content. 

Already a member? Login