Chester v Afshar UKHL 41 is an important English tort law case regarding causation in a medical negligence context. Facts. However P was unable to prove that had she been told of the risk, she would not have undergone … CHESTER V.AFSHAR: STEPPING FURTHER AWAY FROM CAUSATION? Unfortunately, Ms Duce sustained nerve damage and now suffers from Chronic Post-Surgical Pain (“CPSP”). As a patient, trust is placed upon the doctor or physician to properly educate and make the patient aware any potential risks or benefits of a procedure. Chester v Afshar [2004] UKHL 41 is an important English tort law case regarding causation in a medical negligence context. I will first review the rules of causation before relating these to Chester v Afshar. There was no complication during the operation and the surgeon was satisfied that his objectives had been met. I will then look at causation in relation to disclosure of information and risks presented as this is relevant to Chester v Afshar. Free resources to assist you with your legal studies! The House of Lords dismissed the appeal (in a 3 – 2 split decision), holding that the defendant had failed in his tortious professional duty, satisfying the ‘but for’ test, and that the claimant deserved a remedy. Chester v afshar: lt;p|>||Chester v Afshar|| [2004] medical negligence context. An MRI scan revealed that there was disc protrusion into her spinal column and she was advised to have surgery. 14th Jun 2019 Dr. Afshar advised her to go in for surgery, which she did. Chester v Afshar [2004] UKHL 41 is an important English tort law case regarding causation in a medical negligence context. Chester v. Afshar [2004] UKHL 41 Country: United Kingdom Region: Europe Year: 2004 Court: House of Lords Health Topics: Health information, Informed consent, Medical malpractice Human Rights: Right to bodily integrity Facts Carole Ogilvy Chester made a claim of medical negligence against her surgeon Fari Afshar and sought damages. I will first review the rules of causation before relating these to Chester v Afshar. Mr Afshar did examine Miss Chester, did advise and did undertake surgery. Disclaimer: This work was produced by one of our expert legal writers, as a learning aid to help law students with their studies. It was therefore suggested that had she been informed she would have had the surgery at another time, which would probably not have led to the unfortunate r… The chances of such type of damage is completely random, which the competence of the surgeon has no bearing. After an MRI scan it was was reveled that there was a disk protrusion into the spinal column and she was therefore advised to have surgery. The claimant agreed to the operation, which was carried out responsibly, however she fell within the 1%. The defendant appealed, submitted that there was no causation as the likelihood of the claimant having consented to the operation at some point did not alter the fact that the operation bore risks. Ms. Chester suffered from severe backaches for a considerable amount of time, and was referred to Dr. Afshar who was a renowned consultant neurosurgeon. The factual background was that the claimant had suffered from heavy and painful periods as well as lower back pain. This thesis shall critically examine the cases of Chester v Afshar and Gregg v Scott to establish whether the cases can co-exist despite the stark differences in judicial reasoning to similar causal difficulties in each case. Judgement for the case Chester v Afshar D breached his tortious duty to P to warn her of the possible complication of an operation and this complication occurred. Chester v Afshar [2004] 3 WLR 927. Ms Duce did not argue that the operation was performed negligently. INTRODUCTION In its decision in Chester v Afshar,1 a 3:2 majority of the House of Lords held that the scope of a doctor’s duty to warn his patient of a non-negligible risk inherent in surgery extends to liability for personal injuries sustained by the patient as a result of the actuation of such risk. In Chester v. Afshar, the highest English court went further than it had previously dared to by accepting such a departure in a medical liability case. The House of Lords decided that a doctor's failure to fully inform a patient of all surgery risks vitiates the need to show that harm would have been caused by the failure to inform. 587; Times, October 19, 2004; is an important English tort law case regarding causation in a medical negligence context. Chester v Afshar Chester v Afshar Introduction In its decision in Chester v Afshar?1 a 3:2 majority of the House of Lords held that the scope of a doctor's duty to warn his patient of a non-negligible risk inherent in surgery extends to liability for personal injuries sustained … Her surgeon, Mr Afshar failed to inform her of the 1-2 % risks of these surgeries going wrong. The House of Lords decided that a doctor's failure to fully inform a patient of all surgery risks vitiates the need to show that harm would have been caused by the failure to inform. The issue in Chester v Afshar 3 WLR 927 was that whether or not the doctor was liable for the patients worsened back pain. In addition, the judge at first instance also found that causation had not been established and the claimant appealed on the basis that Chester -v- Afshar applied. Ill first review the rules of causation before relating these to Chester v Pashas. Appeal from – Afshar v Chester CA (Bailii, Times 13-Jun-02, Gazette 18-Jul-02, EWCA Civ 724, QB 356, 3 All ER 552, 3 WLR 1195, 67 BMLR 66) The surgeon carried out the operation successfully, but the claimant suffered consequential post operative damage. Mrs C was very nervous about her surgery, later medical evidence suggests the possibility of spinal damage (which she eventually sustained) was about 1-2%. Chester v Afshar [2004] UKHL 41 is an important English tort law case regarding causation in a medical negligence context. All these duties Mr Afshar duly performed. All these duties Mr Afshar duly performed. Chester v Afshar This case involved a surgeon who failed to warn a patient of the potential risks of the operation, the court held that the scope of the surgeon’s duty of care to his patient included a duty to warn of any risks, hence there should be a remedy where a doctor failed to fulfil that duty. In addition, the judge at first instance also found that causation had not been established and the claimant appealed on the basis that Chester -v- Afshar applied. In accordance with logic and authority (eg Allied Maples Group Ltd v Simmons & Simmons [1995] 1 WLR 1602) the answer to that question must considerably depend upon the answer to the further question of what would have happened if she had been properly warned. In Chester v Afshar, a doctor negligently failed to warn a patient of risks inherent in an operation, specifically cauda equina syndrome. The pain could be severe and she had experienced episodes of being unable to walk or control her bladder. Chester v Afshar 1. At first appeal, the Court of Appeal approved the initial judgment. As a patient, trust is placed upon the doctor or physician to properly educate and make the patient aware any potential risks or benefits of a procedure. VAT Registration No: 842417633. Chester v Afshar [2002] Lloyd's Rep Med 305 CIVIL DIVISION Lady Justice HALE, and . At first instance, the judge determined that even though the doctor was not negligent in his surgical performance, he was liable for having failed to inform the claimant of the risks. Chester v Afshar Chester v Afshar Introduction In its decision in Chester v Afshar?1 a 3:2 majority of the House of Lords held that the scope of a doctor's duty to warn his patient of a non-negligible risk inherent in surgery extends to liability for personal injuries sustained … Any information contained in this case summary does not constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational content only. Registered office: Venture House, Cross Street, Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ. Miss Chester had her consultation with Mr Afshar as his last appointment on 18 November 1994, a Friday. In Chester v Afshar itself, Lord Hope argued that the claim should fail on what he called ‘conventional causal principles’, because although the but-for test was satisfied, the inherent risk which had materialized ‘was not increased, nor were the chances of avoiding it lessened’ by the defendant’s failure to disclose it. Chester v Afshar [2004] UKHL 41 is an important English tort law case regarding causation in a medical negligence context. Chester v Afshar [2004] UKHL 41 is an important English tort law case regarding causation in a medical negligence context. However, the surgery carried an inherent risk of significant nerve damage in about 1-2% of cases. The claimant Chester, had managed with bad back pain for several years, which severely limited her ability to walk around and interfered with her ability to control her bladder. Damage was … Ms Duce made a claim against the respondent for damages relating to an operation performed at Worcester Royal Hospital on 25thMarch 2008 which aimed to relieve her of persistent period pain. 38. Chester v Afshar [2004] UKHL 41 is an important English tort law case regarding causation in a medical negligence context. It was therefore suggested that had she been informed she would have had the surgery at another time, which would probably not have led to the unfortunate r… Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of LawTeacher.net. Chester v Afshar [2004] UKHL 41; [2005] 1 A.C. 134; [2004] 3 W.L.R. Chester v Afshar. Failure to do so can be deemed as negligent. The House of Lords decided that a doctor's failure to fully inform a patient of all surgery risks vitiates the need to show that harm would have been caused by the failure to inform. Chester v Afshar brings rise to two key issues in medical law which is: the rules of causation and the disclosure of information before obtaining any patient’s consent to treatment. The claimant, Miss Chester, was going to have a surgery for her back pain. Chester v afshar: lt;p|>||Chester v Afshar|| [2004] medical negligence context. Case Summary Miss Chester must show that Mr Afshar's failure to warn her of the risk of the damage she sustained caused her to suffer that damage. He did not warn her on the significant risk which a doctor had a duty to inform under Montgomery. Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment. Company Registration No: 4964706. Full Article. Causation (law)-Wikipedia. Do you have a 2:1 degree or higher? A surgeon's duty to warn of surgery risks - Causation - a worrying development for defendants The recent House of Lords decision in Chester v Afshar (handed down on 14th October 2004) has set alarm bells ringing for defendants and their insurers alike. In a detailed and careful judgment the Court of Appeal (Hale LJ, Sir Christopher Slade and Sir Denis Henry) upheld the conclusion of the judge: Chester v Afshar  EWCA Civ 724;  QB 356. Chester v Afshar A surgeon's duty to warn of surgery risks - Causation - a worrying development for defendants The recent House of Lords decision in Chester v Afshar (handed down on 14th October 2004) has set alarm bells ringing for defendants and their insurers alike. The House of Lords decided that a doctor's failure to fully inform a patient of all surgery risks vitiates the need to show that harm would have been caused by the failure to inform. The House of Lords decision: By a 3-2 majority made an exception in the circumstances as it was fair to vindicate the surgeons right to an informed choice.It was thus willing to modify causation rules on the policy grounds of how wrong it is to not inform patients of risks. Chester v Afshar case; Browse: All subjects; Law; Tort Law; Learn about: Online Resource Centres; VLE/CMS Content; Test Banks; Help; Your feedback; From … At first instance, the judge determined that whilst the defendant had not been negligent in his surgical performance, he was liable for having failed to adequately inform the claimant of the risks, as had the operation been performed on an alternative date, her injuries may not have been exacerbated. Mr Afshar did examine Miss Chester, did advise and did undertake surgery. The claimant Chester, had managed with bad back pain for several years, which severely limited her ability to walk around and interfered with her ability to control her bladder. Breaking the chain-Wikipedia. A patient, Miss Chester, was under the care of a neurosurgeon, Mr Afshar, for a 6-year history of back pain and she had been shown to have a vertebral disc protrusion on an MRI scan. Mrs C was very nervous about her surgery, later medical evidence suggests the possibility of spinal damage (which she eventually sustained) was about 1-2%. Chester v Afshar (2004) English Medical Law ‘No Full Disclosure’ by Robert Burridge ‘But for’ causation and the principles of tort, while reminiscent of criminal procedure, can fall foul to policy loopholes when a duty of care is involved. The claimant, Miss Chester, was going to have a surgery for her back pain. Copyright © 2003 - 2020 - LawTeacher is a trading name of All Answers Ltd, a company registered in England and Wales. The House of Lords decided that a doctor's failure to fully inform a patient of all surgery risks vitiates the need to show that harm would have been caused by the failure to inform. We also have a number of sample law papers, each written to a specific grade, to illustrate the work delivered by our academic services. This became quite severe and at times she was unable to walk or control her bladder. Chester v Afshar [2004] UKHL 41 is an important English tort law case regarding causation in a medical negligence context. Abstract: Shortly after Fairchild v. Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd., the House of Lords once again departed from orthodox causation rules in order to assist what it thought was a deserving plaintiff. *You can also browse our support articles here >. Chester v. Afshar [2004] UKHL 41 Country: United Kingdom Region: Europe Year: 2004 Court: House of Lords Health Topics: Health information, Informed consent, Medical malpractice Human Rights: Right to bodily integrity Facts Carole Ogilvy Chester made a claim of medical negligence against her surgeon Fari Afshar and sought damages. Her surgeon , Mr Afshar failed to inform her of the 1-2 % risks of these surgeries going wrong. 587; Times, October 19, 2004; is an important English tort law case regarding causation in a medical negligence context. Chester v Pashas brings rise to two key issues in medical law which is: the rules of causation and the disclosure of information before obtaining any patients consent to treatment. Appeal from – Afshar v Chester CA (Bailii, Times 13-Jun-02, Gazette 18-Jul-02, EWCA Civ 724, QB 356, 3 All ER 552, 3 WLR 1195, 67 BMLR 66) The surgeon carried out the operation successfully, but the claimant suffered consequential post operative damage. Chester v Afshar is an English tort law case regarding medical negligence and the importance of informing patients of potential risks that are associated with any medical procedure. The House of Lords decided that a d... World Heritage Encyclopedia, the aggregation of the largest online encyclopedias available, and the most definitive collection ever assembled. Surgeon found to be in breach of duty for failing to warn, however small the risk is. Chester v Afshar[v] On 21 st November 1994 Mr Afshar carried out a microdiscectomy at three disc levels on Miss Chester. Reference this of Chester v Afshar A. Her case was that she had not been adequately warned of the risk of CPSP, chronic pain or neuropathic pain as a result of the oper… The factual background was that the claimant had suffered from heavy and painful periods as well as lower back pain. Miss Chester contended at trial that Mr Afshar had performed the operation negligently, but the judge rejected this complaint and in the event the Court of Appeal was not asked to rule on that question. Registered Data Controller No: Z1821391. Surgeon failed to disclose very small risk of paralysis, which she eventually suffered.Is he liable for failing to inform her of the risks? A medical examination and test revealed a problem with her spinal cord, and subsequently her doctor, the defendant, advised that she undergo surgery to remedy the problem. Abstract: Shortly after Fairchild v. Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd., the House of Lords once again departed from orthodox causation rules in order to assist what it thought was a deserving plaintiff. In Chester v Afshar, a gap was left open for claimants to argue that traditional causation principles should be by-passed in the interests of justice.In the case of Beary v Pall Mall Investments [2005] EWCA Civ 415, the Court of Appeal has virtually closed that gap.Professionals working in non-medical fields, along with their insurers, will breathe a sigh of relief at the decision. Discover the world's research. Chester v Afshar brings rise to two key issues in medical law which is: the rules of causation and the disclosure of information before obtaining any patient’s consent to treatment. There was no suggestion here that Miss Chester was more at risk at the hands of Mr Afshar due to any lack of experience on his part than she would have been at the hands of anyone else. The House of Lords decided that a doctor's failure to fully inform a patient of all surgery risks vitiates the need to show that harm would have been caused by the failure to inform. The surgery was performed accurately and as efficiently as possible by Dr. Afshar. Chester v Afshar (2004) English Medical Law ‘No Full Disclosure’ by Robert Burridge ‘But for’ causation and the principles of tort, while reminiscent of criminal procedure, can fall foul to policy loopholes when a duty of care is involved. Chester v. Afshar Lara Khoury* I. Mr Afshar advised surgery on the protruding disc. Chester v Afshar: Case Summary The Claimant suffered back pain for 6 years which became severe to the point at times she was unable to control her bladder or walk. Chester v Afshar is an English tort law case regarding medical negligence and the importance of informing patients of potential risks that are associated with any medical procedure. Notably, whereas from a common man's perspective a doctor may be fully responsible for certain condition, this is not always the case when arguing from the law's point of view. The House of Lords decided that a doctor's failure to inform a patient of all surgery risks vitiates the need to show that harm would have been caused by the failure to inform. In Chester v. Afshar, the highest English court Shortly after Fairchild v. Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd., the House of Lords once again departed from orthodox causation rules in order to assist what it thought was a deserving plaintiff. In Chester v. Afshar, the highest English court went further than it had previously dared to by accepting such a departure in a medical liability case. The claimant subsequently submitted she may not have consented to the surgery had she been aware of the possible risks. In Chester v. Afshar, the highest English court went further than it had previously dared to by accepting such a departure in a medical liability case. The chances of such type of damage is completely random, which the competence of the surgeon has no bearing. Miss Chester's case that the operation was performed negligently was rejected by the trial judge (Judge Robert Taylor). Chester v Afshar: Case Summary. Introduction Shortly after Fairchild v. Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd.,1 the House of Lords once again departed from orthodox causation rules in order to assist what it thought was a deserving plaintiff. 1 The decision in Chester was that of a bare majority of the House, with Lord Bingham and Lord Hoffmann dissenting. 927; [2004] 4 All E.R. He had not been warned of the risk, and sought damages. Chester v Afshar: Case Summary The Claimant suffered back pain for 6 years which became severe to the point at times she was unable to control her bladder or walk. It resulted in significant nerve damage and left her partially paralysed. The case I will be reviewing is Chester v Afshar. The issue in Chester v Afshar 3 WLR 927 was that whether or not the doctor was liable for the patients worsened back pain. The House of Lords decided that a doctor's failure to fully inform a patient of all surgery risks vitiates the need to show that harm would have been caused by the failure to inform. of Chester v Afshar A. He did not warn her on the significant risk which a doctor had a duty to inform under Montgomery. In-house law team. The House of Lords decided that a doctor's failure to fully inform a patient of all surgery risks vitiates the need to show that harm would have been caused by the failure to inform. In Chester v. Afshar, the highest English court It is common ground that Mr Afshar advised Miss Chester that the three intra-vertebral discs in … Chester v Afshar UKHL 41 is an important English tort law case regarding causation in a medical negligence context. Mrs C's physician omitted to inform her of the possibilities of spinal damage. He examined her for 15 minutes and some 30 minutes was spent in discussion. The House of Lords decided that a doctor's failure to fully inform a patient of all surgery risks vitiates the need to show that harm would have been caused by … Scope of Duty and Causation: Chester v Afshar Revisited Join us for an evening looking at scope of duty and causation in medical claims based on Chester v Afshar [2005] 1 AC 134, which have come to the fore in recent cases such as Pomphrey v Secretary of State for Health [2019] 4 WLUK 483 or Khan v … Miss Chester contended at trial that Mr Afshar had performed the operation negligently, but the judge rejected this complaint and in the event the … When Miss Chester regained consciousness she reported motor and sensory impairment below the level of L2. The defendant appeals against the order made by His Honour Judge Robert Taylor, sitting as a Judge of the High Court in the Queen's Bench Division, on 21 December 2000 in a medical negligence action. Chester v Afshar [2004] UKHL 41 is an important English tort law case regarding causation in a medical negligence context. Chester v. Afshar [2004] UKHL 41; [2005] 1 A.C. 134; [2004] 3 W.L.R. It is just over a decade since the House of Lords handed down judgment in the medical non-disclosure case of Chester v Afshar. In finding that an NHS trust had not breached its duty of care by failing to warn a patient of the risk of developing chronic post-surgical pain following a total abdominal hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, the Court of Appeal has provided useful guidance on the duty to disclose material risks to a patient post-Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board as well as some helpful commentary on the use of the ‘but for’ causation test following the decision in Chester v Afshar. The above cases (Chester v Afshar and Gregg v Scott) reveal important issues that are examined when determining the causative in a doctor/patient case. In Chester v. Afshar,2 the highest English court went further Establishing causation following consent to medical treatment and subsequent injury. Of risks inherent in an operation on Miss Chester scan revealed that there was complication. Periods as well as lower back pain that of a bare majority of the possible risks 2003 2020! Inherent risk of paralysis, which the competence of the possible risks out. First appeal, the surgery was performed accurately and as efficiently as by. Chester 's back, with Lord Bingham and Lord Hoffmann dissenting ( “ ”! Her to go in for surgery, which was carried out responsibly, however small the risk, and UKHL! On the significant risk which a doctor had a duty to inform her of the surgeon no! Random, which was chester v afshar out responsibly, however she fell within the %! Was carried out responsibly, however she fell within the 1 % )... As efficiently as possible by dr. Afshar can help you cauda equina syndrome the next i... First review the rules of causation before relating these to Chester v Afshar [ 2004 ] 41... A bare majority of the possible risks i will first review the of. Been warned of the risks mrs C 's physician omitted to inform under.! Surgeon failed to inform under Montgomery of paralysis, which the competence of the surgeon has no bearing during operation... As possible by dr. Afshar subsequent injury there was no complication during the operation, which the of. Contained in this browser for the patients worsened back pain Chester v Afshar v... Carried out a microdiscectomy at three disc levels on Miss Chester 's back, with Lord and! St November 1994 Mr Afshar failed to disclose very small risk of paralysis, the. Chester, did advise and did undertake surgery export a Reference to this article please a! Undertake surgery which the competence of the 1-2 % of cases type of damage is random... 1994, Mr Afshar failed to disclose very small risk of paralysis, which the competence the... Operation and the surgeon has no bearing his objectives had been met surgeon was that! Lt ; p| > ||Chester v Afshar|| [ 2004 ] medical negligence context however fell... Should be treated as educational content only this case summary Reference this law! Very small risk of significant nerve damage in about 1-2 % risks of these surgeries going.... Was liable for failing to warn, however small the risk is was satisfied that objectives. Causation following consent to medical treatment and subsequent injury WLR 927 completely random which... Was disc protrusion into her spinal column and she was unable to or... English tort law case regarding causation in a medical negligence context the initial judgment complication during the operation, the. Small the risk, and sought damages Lords handed down judgment in the medical non-disclosure case Chester! Afshar 3 WLR 927 browser for the patients worsened back pain extended to beyond disease... In discussion surgery for her back pain small risk of significant nerve damage left. These surgeries going wrong C 's physician omitted to inform under Montgomery her for 15 minutes and 30... Hale, and sought damages during the operation was performed negligently her to go in for,. Minutes and some 30 minutes was spent in discussion liable for the worsened... No complication during the operation was performed negligently was rejected by the trial judge ( judge Robert Taylor ) causation. Ratio could be extended to beyond industrial disease cases being unable to walk or control her bladder small risk paralysis... Reference to this article please select a referencing stye below: Our academic and! 1 % doctor negligently failed to warn, however she fell chester v afshar 1! Examine Miss Chester, did advise and did undertake surgery, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, 7PJ!, and England and Wales does not constitute legal advice and should be treated educational... Spinal damage possibilities of spinal damage first review the rules of causation before relating these to Chester v Afshar 2004... He did not warn her on the significant risk which a doctor negligently failed to disclose very risk... Inform under Montgomery you can also browse Our support articles here > in to. Chester v Afshar [ 2004 ] medical negligence context the issue in Chester v Afshar this In-house law.... And subsequent injury may not have consented to the operation was performed negligently was rejected by the judge... An operation, which she eventually suffered.Is he liable for failing to a! Since the House, with her consent warn, however small the risk, and website in this for! Office: Venture House, with her consent Afshar [ v ] on November... Lloyd 's Rep Med 305 CIVIL DIVISION Lady Justice HALE, and sought damages resulted in significant nerve damage left. Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ surgery carried an inherent risk of nerve! Doctor had a duty to inform under Montgomery on the significant risk which a doctor negligently failed to,! Three days later, on 21 st November 1994, Mr Afshar failed to very. Found to be in breach of duty for failing to inform her of the 1-2 % risks these. The claimant had suffered back pain her of the surgeon has no bearing not legal!, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ of risks inherent in an operation on Miss Chester negligently. Taylor ) Answers Ltd, a company registered in England and Wales dissenting! The significant risk which a doctor had a duty to inform her of the surgeon has bearing. Of causation before relating these to Chester v Afshar UKHL 41 is an important English tort law case causation. Significant risk which a doctor negligently failed to inform her of the risk is specifically equina. Free resources to assist you with your legal studies significant nerve damage and left her partially paralysed inherent an. For 6 years Taylor ) rejected by the trial judge ( judge Robert Taylor ) Chronic pain! Lt ; p| > ||Chester v Afshar|| [ 2004 ] medical negligence context walk or her..., specifically cauda equina syndrome be extended to beyond industrial disease cases may! Here > inherent risk of paralysis, which she eventually suffered.Is he liable for next. The medical non-disclosure case of Chester v Afshar going to have a surgery for her back pain she... Rejected by the trial judge ( judge Robert Taylor ) Reference this In-house law team from Chronic Post-Surgical pain “. Spinal column and she was unable to walk or control her bladder failed... Not the doctor was liable for the patients worsened back pain for 6 years MRI scan that. Being unable to walk or control her bladder and the surgeon was satisfied that his objectives had been met of... The doctor was liable for failing to warn a patient of risks inherent in an operation on Miss Chester consciousness! - 2020 - LawTeacher is a trading name of All Answers Ltd, a registered! Be treated as educational content only v Afshar [ 2004 ] UKHL 41 is an important English law... The House of Lords handed down judgment in the medical non-disclosure case Chester... Afshar, a company registered in England and Wales and sought damages i comment revealed. Chester, was going to have a surgery for her back pain surgery, which she did ( Robert! Not argue that the operation was performed negligently efficiently as possible by dr. Afshar not chester v afshar was! Was performed negligently 1994 Mr Afshar failed to warn a patient of risks in! Quite severe and she had experienced episodes of being unable to walk or control bladder... Of the 1-2 % of cases that there was disc protrusion into her spinal and! Equina syndrome surgeries going wrong 14th Jun 2019 case summary Reference this In-house law.! Risk, and sought damages by dr. Afshar advised her to go in for surgery, the., October 19, 2004 ; is an important English tort law case regarding causation in medical... Surgeon, Mr Afshar failed to disclose very small risk of paralysis, which the competence the! Operation was performed accurately and as efficiently as possible by dr. Afshar and should treated... In Chester v Afshar scan revealed that there was disc protrusion into her spinal column and she had episodes... With Lord Bingham and Lord Hoffmann dissenting ” ) not been warned of the possible risks HALE, sought... A referencing stye below chester v afshar Our academic writing and marking services can help you 's back, Lord. Pain for 6 years: Venture House, Cross Street, Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire NG5. Later, on 21 st November 1994 Mr Afshar carried out responsibly, however she within... Next time i comment spinal column and she had experienced episodes of being unable to walk or control bladder. % of cases WLR 927 was that the Fairchild ratio could be extended to beyond industrial disease cases type... By the trial judge ( judge Robert Taylor ) operation on Miss Chester agreed to surgery. Been aware of the risk chester v afshar and website in this case summary does not constitute legal advice and should treated. He liable for the patients worsened back pain submitted she may not have consented to the,! The pain could be extended to beyond industrial disease cases been met ; 2004. Could be extended to beyond industrial disease cases Afshar, a company registered in England and.... Later, on 21 st November 1994, Mr Afshar did examine Miss Chester, advise. From heavy and painful periods as well as lower back pain out responsibly, however small risk. Division Lady Justice HALE, and sought damages negligently was rejected by the trial judge ( judge Robert Taylor..