Gregg v Scott: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
m (The issue...)
The defendant, Dr Scott, misdiagnosed negligently the plaintiff's malignant cancer, stating it to be benign. This had the effect of delaying Mr Gregg's treatment by nine months, reducing his chances of surviving ten years from 42% to 25%.<ref>https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200405/ldjudgmt/jd050127/greg-1.htm </ref>
Under the earlier decision of ''[[Hotson v East Berkshire Area Health Authority]]'', the view taken at first instance, and by the Court of Appeal, the claimant could not establish the defendant had prevented him being cured, as his original chance of a cure was below 50%. The plaintiff argued that he was entitled to recover for the loss of the 17% chance the defendant had deprived him of. The issue was whether the claimant could claim for their 'loss of a chance'.