As the summer school holidays draw to a close and the first hints of cooler, greyer skies begin to replace what has been a thoroughly welcome season of sunshine, we find ourselves, as ever, turning back to the world of medical malpractice with a packed edition of Med Mal Matters.

This month's articles reflect a sector facing change on several fronts simultaneously. We report on the outcome of the primary clinical negligence claim in Paul v The Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust, a Browne Jacobson case with conduct led by Chloe Bolton, to whom we extend a very well-deserved congratulations on the outcome. Following its long-awaited trial at the Royal Courts of Justice, HHJ Glen dismissed the claim and offered a useful restatement of the Bolam test and the role of clinical guidelines in individual patient care.

Gemma Commons also considers the rapidly evolving risk landscape presented by telehealth and remote consultation services, where the absence of physical examination and the growth of online prescribing, particularly for weight-loss medication, are creating new categories of exposure for providers and insurers alike.

On the transatlantic front, we are delighted to welcome Karen Salmon, UK Professional Liability Director at Gallagher Bassett, as co-author with Lucy Bowdery of our piece asking whether US claims trends - in areas including sepsis, obstetrics, GLP-1 medications, and missed cancer diagnosis - can serve as an early warning system for the UK market. We are very grateful to Karen for her insight and contribution, and the piece is all the richer for it.

Closer to home, and in the latest instalment of her series of AI-focused articles, Naiomh O’Reilly examines the MHRA's National Commission into the Regulation of AI in Healthcare, which has confirmed what many already suspected: that between 77% and 88% of respondents consider the current legal framework for AI either insufficient or riddled with significant gaps, with liability allocation remaining deeply uncertain.

Jenny Davies meanwhile tackles the House of Lords' recent debate on fertility treatment regulation, which exposed a sector in legislative limbo, with patients with many of them paying privately and at their most vulnerable and left navigating a fragmented framework ill-equipped for the modern fertility market.

Finally, Alice Webb and I collaborated to highlight a quietly significant development on the dental front: the amendment of the NHS FP17DC form to include the treating clinician's name, a change that took effect on 1 April 2026 and which has real implications for non-delegable duty claims against practice owners.

We hope this edition proves a useful companion as the pace picks up again after the summer. As always, thank you for reading.

Bethan and the Browne Jacobson medical malpractice team