News & Insights: Healthcare

FORMER PATIENT OF CONSULTANT NEUROLOGIST, DR WATT, AWARDED £50,000 DAMAGES

3 October 2024

The High Court in Belfast, has today awarded £50,000 damages to a  Plaintiff, a former patient,  who pursued a medical negligence claim against Dr Michael Watt and The Belfast Health and Social Care Trust. The Trial of the action took place in April 2024.

The Plaintiff developed neurological symptoms including headaches, dizziness, pins and needles in her right arm and nausea, sensitivity to light and sound in 2015. She therefore attended a Consultant Neurologist at The Royal Victoria Hospital who diagnosed a cervicogenic headache and migraine. Treatment in the form of nerve block injections brought some relief but the symptoms unfortunately returned at which stage the Plaintiff decided to attend another Consultant Neurologist, Dr Michael Watt, as a private patient.

During this private appointment in July 2016, and without arranging further investigations e.g. an MRI scan, Dr Watt made a diagnosis of Spontaneous Intracranial Hypotension (“SIH”). He also advised the Plaintiff that she had a hole in her spine and that he would perform a blood patch procedure on the NHS and that this would cure her headaches. It was the Plaintiff’s evidence that there was no discussion about the risks associated with the procedure or the prospects of it being successful. In addition, there was no discussion about the possibility of alternative diagnoses.

Dr Watt then referred the Plaintiff to his NHS list at The Royal Victoria Hospital, Belfast where he performed the blood patch procedure in November 2016. It was the Plaintiff’s evidence that she experienced excruciating pain in her right leg and asked Dr Watt to stop the procedure but he continued with it. After a further complaint, Dr Watt ended the procedure.

The Judge, having heard the evidence of the Plaintiff and the independent medical experts instructed by each party determined that:

  • Dr Watt’s diagnosis of SIH was negligent and not within an acceptable body of medical practice in 2016.
  • Dr Watt had also negligently failed to conduct a neurological examination, obtain informed consent and consider alternative diagnoses.
  • As Dr Watt carried out the treatment plan devised in his private capacity in July 2016 when the Plaintiff attended him as an NHS patient in November 2016, this was based on his negligent misdiagnosis and, “It cannot always be the case, as a matter of principle, that the act of transferring a patient from private to health service care should automatically end any established negligence on behalf of the same clinician acting in a private capacity before the transfer. The Court must look at the facts of the case and contribution, if any, the initial negligence has contributed to the harm suffered by the patient. Subsequent negligence on behalf of the health service does not automatically vitiate any negligence on behalf of the clinician acting in his private capacity prior to referral.”
  • The Defendants i.e. Dr Watt and The Belfast Health and Social Care Trust were each 50% liable for the Plaintiff’s injuries and in turn, the payment of damages to her.
  • The Plaintiff underwent a wholly unnecessary and invasive clinical procedure which involved a degree of discomfort over and above what would be expected in the course of the same. She also suffered a short-term worsening of her headaches and an exacerbation of a mixed anxiety and depressive disorder including sleep disturbance, inability to relax, reduced confidence and weight gain due to inactivity and would require a course of Cognitive Behavioural Therapy. In addition, she continued to experience pain in her right leg.

In light of the above, the Plaintiff was awarded £50,000 damages and payment of her reasonable legal costs.

As we continue to represent a significant number of Dr Watt’s former patients involving both private and NHS care, we very much welcome this judgment and the guidance it provides both in relation to the issue of the liability of each Defendant and the assessment of damages. We will take time to consider the written judgment when it is published in full and we look forward to progressing our clients’ cases towards equally satisfactory conclusions.

  • Share