How to argue consent, causation and candour in clinical negligence cases
During this one-day conference Robert Glancy QC, together with a panel of esteemed clinical negligence specialists consisting of 3 QCs, 3 solicitors and 1 expert witness, provided solution-focused answers to 12 thorny questions which play on clinical negligence practitioners' minds.
Robert Glancy QC dealt with the question: “If Montgomery is in essence retrospective, which past cases will now be capable of litigation and how can you develop/approach arguments that limitation does not apply?”
Other topics on people's minds were:
- How can you apply and plead the new test for consent set out in Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board?
- How is consent to be judged, reviewed or determined?
- Now that the issue of what should be discussed with a patient is a matter of law, not professional practice, how is expert evidence going to change and be used, with particular reference to what might have happened and whether injury would have occurred anyway?
- How can Healthcare Institutions comply with the Duty of Candour within different case scenarios, with reference to providing a truthful account of the facts, apologies, volunteering information and follow-up enquiries?
- How can the breach of the Duty of Candour be grounds for establishing civil liability?
- How can you quantify the defendant’s liability when there is pre-existing condition, with reference to the “egg shell skull rule”, “but for” scenario and the doctrine of “material contribution”?
The event was organised by White Paper Conferences and took place at The Caledonian Club, London on 21 October 2015.Back to Events
Areas of expertise
- Administrative and Public Law
- Clinical Negligence
- Commercial Litigation and Disputes
- Health & Safety
- Human Rights
- Insurance & Reinsurance
- Personal Injury
- Professional Negligence
- Regulatory & Professional Discipline
- Sports Law
- Telecommunications & IT