Patients can sue authority for actions of GP
http://www.100md.com
《英国医生杂志》
legal correspondent
Former patients of the struck-off GP Clifford Ayling were given the go ahead at the High Court last week to sue the health authority responsible for primary care trusts and NHS trusts in the area where he practised.
The claim, the first of its kind, will test the extent to which health authorities can be held legally liable for the actions of self employed GPs. Dr Ayling, 72, was a partner in a family practice in Kent and also worked in hospitals in the area.
The 31 women claim that between 1993 and 2000 the GP assaulted them, usually indecently, or treated them negligently. He was convicted of 13 counts of indecent assault against 10 patients and sentenced to four years?imprisonment in December 2000. He was struck off by the General Medical Council.
Of the 31 claimants 13 brought proceedings directly against him in the county court and were awarded damages. But he was declared bankrupt so they have not been compensated.
The women抯 claim against Kent and Medway Strategic Health Authority states that their ordeals would have been avoided if health professionals employed by the authority had blown the whistle on Dr Ayling.
Mr Justice Gray refused an application by the authority to have the case struck out in its entirety. He ruled that the authority could not be liable for breach of duty under the National Health Service Act 1977, which imposed no duty of care. But he allowed the case to go ahead on the basis that the authority could be held indirectly liable at common law if its employees had failed to take action when they should have done.
The judge said he was mindful of the need for caution before striking out claims in a developing area of the law. Caution was apposite in the present case, because the climate of opinion in regard to whistleblowers had changed in recent years.
The women claim that by 1993 there was a wealth of information, known to at least some of the healthcare workers employed by the authority, about the kind of threat Dr Ayling posed to women patients.
Their solicitor, Sarah Harman, said: "The claimants hope for a settlement, as they feel the health authority had a moral and legal obligation to protect them and failed dismally."
The report of a government inquiry into Dr Ayling抯 activities is expected this month or in the autumn.(BMJ Clare Dyer)
Former patients of the struck-off GP Clifford Ayling were given the go ahead at the High Court last week to sue the health authority responsible for primary care trusts and NHS trusts in the area where he practised.
The claim, the first of its kind, will test the extent to which health authorities can be held legally liable for the actions of self employed GPs. Dr Ayling, 72, was a partner in a family practice in Kent and also worked in hospitals in the area.
The 31 women claim that between 1993 and 2000 the GP assaulted them, usually indecently, or treated them negligently. He was convicted of 13 counts of indecent assault against 10 patients and sentenced to four years?imprisonment in December 2000. He was struck off by the General Medical Council.
Of the 31 claimants 13 brought proceedings directly against him in the county court and were awarded damages. But he was declared bankrupt so they have not been compensated.
The women抯 claim against Kent and Medway Strategic Health Authority states that their ordeals would have been avoided if health professionals employed by the authority had blown the whistle on Dr Ayling.
Mr Justice Gray refused an application by the authority to have the case struck out in its entirety. He ruled that the authority could not be liable for breach of duty under the National Health Service Act 1977, which imposed no duty of care. But he allowed the case to go ahead on the basis that the authority could be held indirectly liable at common law if its employees had failed to take action when they should have done.
The judge said he was mindful of the need for caution before striking out claims in a developing area of the law. Caution was apposite in the present case, because the climate of opinion in regard to whistleblowers had changed in recent years.
The women claim that by 1993 there was a wealth of information, known to at least some of the healthcare workers employed by the authority, about the kind of threat Dr Ayling posed to women patients.
Their solicitor, Sarah Harman, said: "The claimants hope for a settlement, as they feel the health authority had a moral and legal obligation to protect them and failed dismally."
The report of a government inquiry into Dr Ayling抯 activities is expected this month or in the autumn.(BMJ Clare Dyer)