0370 270 6000

already registered?

Please sign in with your existing account details.

need to register?

Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.

Privacy statement - Terms and conditions

D -v- East Berkshire Community Hospital Trust and Others

3 October 2002
The issues

Munchausen by Proxy – duty of care owed to mother by diagnosing Doctors.

The facts

The Claimant gave birth to a boy. The boy was prone to suffering allergic reactions and was referred to a Specialist when he was 6. He was assessed by the Specialist over 4 days in hospital. The mother went with the boy, and although she did not know, the Specialist also made an assessment of her. He believed she was exaggerating the boy’s symptoms and that the boy needed the protection of a Social Services referral. He did not pursue the matter as much as he could have done at the time. 2 years later, another Specialist took over the case and re-reading the file notes from 2 years before, started investigations again into the Claimant mother’s role. The first Specialist wrote to Social Services, mentioning the possibility of Munchausen by Proxy. A Case Conference was held, at which the Claimant and both Specialists attended. The boy was put on the Child Protection Register. Subsequently, the boy was assessed by an Allergy Specialist, who confirmed that the problems were genuine. As a result the boy was taken off the Child Protection Register. The Claimant sued the Hospital Trusts, who were the employers of the two Specialists, alleging the diagnosis of Munchausen by Proxy had been made negligently and that as a consequence she had suffered a severe psychiatric illness. The Defendants argued that they owed no duty of care to the Claimant. The issue as to duty was tried as a preliminary issue.

The decision

1. The injury to the Claimant was reasonably foreseeable.

2. Public policy considerations militated against the existence of a duty owed to the parent in these circumstances.

3. There was a potential conflict of interest between the child – patient and the parent. The protection of the child was a vital importance and the case gave rise to similar issues that arose in the sexual abuse cases – X -v- Bedfordshire County Council – which could not be distinguished. (The House of Lords declined to find that the maker of a diagnosis of sexual abuse in respect of a child owed any duty of care to the alleged abuser).

4. Consequently, the claim failed and it was not necessary to consider whether there was sufficient proximity between the Claimant and the Doctors under the test in Caparo.

training and events

4Feb

Insurer Insight event London office

Developed for insurers, this exclusive series of events will provide you with operational and practical insights from across the legal spectrum.

View event

focus on...

Legal updates

Insurance Product Value and the duty to act in the best interests of customers: risks from intermediary remuneration

On 19 November 2019, the Financial Conduct Authority (“FCA”) published “Finalised guidance” (FG19/5) for “insurance product manufacturers and distributors”.

View

Legal updates

Financial Services – ‘Duty of Care’ Bill: consumer protection or damp squib?

The Financial Services Duty of Care Bill (the “Bill”) was introduced into the House of Lords in October 2019 and had its second reading on 9 January 2020.

View

Legal updates

Noise-induced hearing loss claims – documentation and the expert engineer

Guest writer, Finch Consulting Senior Consultant Teli Chinelis applies his expertise in preparing engineering reports in relation to noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) claims to explain information that is required from the claimant and information that is required and is advisable to be retained by employers, in order to ensure that claims can be fairly represented.

View

Legal updates

SRA Standards and Regulations November 2019

On Monday 25 November the 2011 SRA Handbook is replaced by the 2019 SRA Standards and Regulations (often referred to as STARS).This is the 26th version of the Code of Conduct for Solicitors.

View

The content on this page 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.

mailing list sign up



Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up