|
Claim against speech and language therapists
fails
30 May 2008
On 20 May 2008 Judgment was handed down in the matter of
Anthony Crowley v Surrey County Council, Kingston Primary Care
Trust and South West London Strategic Health Authority.
Browne Jacobson acted for the Health Authorities on instructions
from the NHS Litigation Authority.
The claim can be broadly categorised as an
“educational negligence” claim, one of an ever diminishing number
of such claims which proceed to trial given the inherent
difficulties in establishing a breach of duty, together with the
fact that the level of damages awarded tend to be modest,
particularly when compared to the significant costs
involved.
The claimant, who has since been diagnosed
with schizophrenia, had various language and learning difficulties
whilst at school. The claim is unusual in that it is the
first of its kind to involve allegations against NHS speech and
language therapists, in this case employed by various Health
Authorities between 1987 and 1995. Specifically, allegations
were made against various speech and language therapists in respect
of a failure to undertake appropriate assessments of the claimant
and diagnose a specific language disorder. It was also
claimed that an educational psychologist employed by Surrey County
Council failed to recognise the claimant’s language difficulties
and initiate a statutory assessment of the his special educational
needs.
To succeed at trial, the claimant needed to
establish that:
- He had a specific language disorder which was amenable to
treatment, as opposed to speech and language difficulties in line
with his mild global delay
- But for the alleged failure by the educational psychologist and
speech and language therapists, he would have received different
education and speech and language therapy provision between 1990
and 1995 which would have enabled him to obtain qualifications and
gain better social and communication skills prior to the onset of
his schizophrenia
- Whilst the claimant was in any event of low intelligence, the
difference made to his pre-morbid condition would have improved his
current prognosis enabling him to obtain sheltered employment and
be capable of semi-independent living
During the course of the nine day trial, Mr
Justice Foskett heard detailed evidence from educational
psychology, speech and language therapy and psychiatry
experts. On the basis of all the evidence, the claim was
dismissed. Mr Justice Foskett found no negligent failure by
the educational psychologist or the speech and language therapists
for failing to diagnose a speech and language disorder. In
this respect, it was clear that the claimant was something of a
diagnostic conundrum and that against the background of all his
difficulties, it was not possible to conclude that anyone
conducting an assessment of the claimant that accorded with
reasonable practice at the relevant time negligently “missed”
discovering a specific language disorder.
The case highlights the merits of taking a
robust stance to this type of speculative claim. Local
Authorities will be pleased at the outcome which represents another
nail in the coffin for educational negligence claims.
Similarly, this is a good news story for Health Authorities and
speech and language therapists, against whom a potential flurry of
litigation could have been anticipated had the claimant been
successful.
For more information or advice, please contact
Amelia Newbold or Lorna
Hardman.
The content of this bulletin is provided for
the purposes of general interest and information. It contains only
brief summaries of aspects of the subject matter and does not
provide comprehensive statements of the law. It does not constitute
legal advice and does not provide a substitute for it.