Welcome to the first issue of the Quarterly Medical Law Review, brought to you by barristers at 1 Crown Office Row. This new quarterly publication aims to provide summaries and comment on recent cases in medical law, including clinical negligence, regulatory, and inquests.
Download the Spring 2019 newsletter here: 1COR QMLR Spring 2019 Issue 1
In our first issue of QMLR:
Shaheen Rahman QC discusses the case of North West Anglia NHS FT v Gregg  EWCA Civ 387, which concerns disciplinary proceedings against doctors and looks at whether an employer is entitled to suspend pay and proceed with a disciplinary process even when criminal proceedings are outstanding – see pages 2 to 4.
Matthew Flinn takes us through two judgments on expert evidence: Bowman v Thomson  EWCHC 269; and Mays v Drive Force (UK) Ltd  EWHC 5; in particular focusing on the thorny issue of ‘expert shopping’ and the circumstances in which the court will allow evidence on life expectancy to rebut the ‘average’ cohort as contained in the Ogden tables – pages 4 to 7.
Suzanne Lambert considers the relationship between the quantum of damages and the scope of the duty of care as most recently considered by the Court of Appeal in Meadows v Khan  EWCA Civ 152 – pages 7 to 8 (see also the case of Paul Pomphrey in the Hot off the Press section pages 15-16).
Jeremy Hyam QC discusses interim payments, causation and the Eeles test in the light of the recent decision of Spencer J. in Farrington v Menzies-Haines  WLUK 157 – pages 8 to 9.
Rajkiran Barhey looks at two judgments considering applications for anonymity orders and the factors which will point for and against anonymity being granted both in the clinical negligence context (Zeromska-Smith v Lincolnshire NHS Trust  EWHC 552; and in the GMC context (GMC v. X  EWHC 493) – pages 9 to 12.
Dominic Ruck Keene analyses three recent judgments on medical treatment and consent; Keh v Homerton  EWHC 548 (QB); Kennedy v Frankel  EWHC 106 (QB); and Ollosson v Lee  EWHC 784 (QB) each of which illustrate the critical importance of both limbs of informed consent post-Montgomery viz. what advice should have been given, and what, as a matter of factual causation, a patient would have done if given appropriate advice. – pages 12 to 15.
Finally, see our In Brief and Hot Off the Press sections. If you would like to provide any feedback or further comment, do not hesitate to contact the editorial team at email@example.com.
Get the latest judgments, case updates and information by following us on twitter @1corQMLR
Each quarter, the 1COR Quarterly Medical Law Review will be sent to our mailing list, then published on the 1COR website one week later.
To subscribe to our pre-release mailing list, please email your name and consent to be contacted to firstname.lastname@example.org. To unsubscribe from this mailing list, please email your name and ‘unsubscribe’ to the same email address.