§ PUBLISHED JUDGMENT · 2011

Dainton v Powell

[2011] EWHC 219 (QB)·High Court (Queen's Bench Division)·18 February 2011

A GP re-examined a nine-week-old baby's hips after a colleague had noted they were stiff, recorded them as seeming fine and did not refer her to an orthopaedic specialist; the dislocated right hip was only discovered when she was seven and needed major surgery. The judge found the GP should have detected the limited hip movement and referred immediately, and that early referral would have led to simpler treatment.

Outcome

Claimant succeeded

Sum stated in judgment

Not stated

Claim type

GP Negligence

Decided

Liability decided at trial

G
ClaimGavel Assistant
● Online · GP Negligence · free & confidential
FREE
TELL US WHAT HAPPENED — TYPE HERE

Start typing — your likely claim, value and time limit appear here.

Describe what happened (a sentence or two) to begin.

Free · confidential · not legal adviceEngland

§ WHAT HAPPENED

The facts, in brief.

Defendant: Dr Hazel Powell (general practitioner)

Injury: Undiagnosed congenital dislocation of the right hip; diagnosed at age seven, requiring major reconstructive surgery, with hip replacement anticipated in later life

Specialty: General practice (infant hip screening) · England

§ WHAT THE COURT SAID

In the judgment’s own words.

“I therefore give judgment for the claimant against the defendant on the issues of breach of duty and causation, with damages to be assessed.”

The money

Judgment for the claimant on breach and causation with damages to be assessed separately; no figure printed.

§ WHY IT MATTERS

What this case shows.

When an infant hip check raises concern, a GP must refer for specialist assessment rather than arranging a distant re-check. Missing a dislocated hip in infancy turns a condition treatable with a splint into one needing major surgery.

About gp negligence claims →

§ MORE GP NEGLIGENCE JUDGMENTS

Claimant succeeded

Shaheen & Anor v Dr Joanna Daish

[2025] EWHC 3056 (KB)·2025·Liability decided at trial

A 49-year-old man saw his GP with breathlessness and a persistent cough; the GP ordered a chest X-ray on the computer system but the judge found she never told him to go to the walk-in radiology department. The court held he would have attended if told and was not himself at fault.

Ordering a test is not enough; the patient must be told clearly what to do. Courts are slow to blame patients for not chasing a test they did not know had been requested.

Claimant succeeded

Philipa Hodgson v Dr Daniel Hammond & Anor

[2025] EWHC 1261 (KB)·2025·Liability decided at trial

Ms Hodgson saw a locum GP who suspected pelvic inflammatory disease but did not examine her or arrange urgent follow-up, and a second GP reviewing her blood results by telephone did not refer her for examination. The delay in treatment led to an abscess, removal of a fallopian tube and chronic pelvic pain.

When a GP suspects a serious infection, the court expects an examination or urgent referral to rule it out, and a telephone review of test results does not replace that. Both GPs were held liable, with damages to be decided separately.

Claimant succeeded

Gurmukh Gahir v Dr Ayodele Olusgun Ola

[2024] EWHC 390 (KB)·2024·Liability decided at trial

Mr Gahir went to his GP with fever, severe headache, nausea and confusion; the GP diagnosed migraine, and he was not admitted to hospital until 55 hours later, when herpes simplex encephalitis was treated with acyclovir. The judge found the combination of fever, headache and confusion required urgent hospital referral and that earlier treatment would have left him far less disabled.

Fever, headache and confusion together are a recognised red flag for brain infection, and a GP who attributes them to migraine without arranging urgent admission may be found negligent. The judge accepted the family's account of the patient's confusion during the consultation.

All gp negligence judgments →

Contains information licensed under the Open Justice - Licence v2.0. Judgments from Find Case Law, The National Archives. Summaries are ours; amounts only where printed in the judgment.

This guide is general information about the law in England and Wales, not legal advice about your case. ClaimGavel is run by Costart Projects Ltd on behalf of Tomlin & Partners, a specialist medical negligence firm regulated by the SRA. The free assessment on this page is an AI overview to show you roughly where you stand; a solicitor confirms the position in a free, no-obligation conversation.