Introduction

The case of Marguerite Henderson against Benarty Medical Practice ([2022] ScotCS CSOH_28) presents a pivotal examination of the duty of care owed by medical practitioners and the protocols surrounding appointment management. Mrs. Henderson, the pursuer, alleged that breaches by the medical practice's staff led to delayed treatment, resulting in severe health deteriorations and multiple amputations. This commentary delves into the intricacies of the judgment, analyzing the court's reasoning, precedents cited, and the broader implications for medical negligence law.

Summary of the Judgment

The central issue in this case revolved around a specific telephone call between Mrs. Henderson and Heather Leslie, a receptionist at Benarty Medical Practice, on the morning of February 28, 2018. Mrs. Henderson claimed that her appointment with a treatment room nurse was canceled without her consent, attributing this to staff negligence that delayed her treatment for sepsis. The defense maintained that Mrs. Henderson had canceled the appointment herself. After meticulous examination of testimonies and evidence, the Court of Session sided with the defendants, concluding that the appointment was indeed canceled at Mrs. Henderson's request.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment referenced several key precedents to underpin its analysis of witness credibility and evidence reliability:

• Onassis v Vergottis [1968] Lloyd's LR 403: Emphasized the fallibility of memory and the potential for unconscious bias in witness recollections.
• Gestmin SGPS SA v Credit Suisse (UK) Ltd & Another [2020] 1 CLC 428; Highlighted the psychological unreliability of eyewitness testimony and the importance of consistency in witness accounts.
• Other cited cases reinforced the notion that consistency and corroboration with extraneous evidence are paramount in assessing witness reliability.

Legal Reasoning

The court meticulously evaluated the credibility and consistency of the testimonies presented:

• Consistency with Evidence: The court found Heather Leslie's account to be consistent with contemporaneous medical notes and the practice's appointment management system.
• Technical Procedures: Emphasized the robustness of the practice’s appointment cancellation system, which required multiple confirmations to prevent inadvertent cancellations.
• Witness Recollection: Acknowledged the inherent unreliability of human memory, especially under emotional distress, as highlighted by Lord Pearce in Onassis v Vergottis.
• Credibility Assessment: Determined that Mrs. Henderson's account was influenced by "wishful thinking" and did not align with the corroborative evidence, thereby undermining her credibility.

Impact

The judgment has significant implications for medical practices and their administrative protocols:

• Appointment Management: Reinforces the necessity for robust appointment scheduling and cancellation procedures to prevent disputes over administrative actions.
• Dealing with Medical Negligence Claims: Highlights the importance of consistent and accurate record-keeping in defending against negligence claims.
• Witness Reliability: Underscores the critical role of corroborative evidence and consistency in witness testimonies within medical negligence litigations.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Conclusion

The Henderson v Benarty Medical Practice judgment serves as a crucial reference point in understanding the complexities involved in medical negligence cases, particularly concerning administrative procedures and witness reliability. By meticulously dissecting the evidence and adhering to established precedents on memory and credibility, the court provided a clear framework for assessing liability. Medical practices must heed the importance of robust appointment systems and thorough record-keeping to mitigate potential legal disputes. Moreover, the case reinforces the judiciary's cautious approach towards recollection-based evidence, emphasizing the need for corroborative documentation to uphold justice.