Every one a published decision of the courts of England and Wales, linked to its source. Five losses and two wins, and the losses explain the wins.
Claimant succeeded
[2026] EWCC 26·2026·Liability decided at trial
A theatre nurse with worsening palpitations saw a hospital physician who admittedly failed to arrange 24-hour ECG monitoring. The judge found monitoring would have caught her atrial fibrillation in time for anticoagulants to prevent the stroke she suffered.
Palpitations that keep coming back need proper heart-rhythm monitoring. Where a missed test would have led to blood-thinning treatment, a later stroke can be laid at the hospital's door.
Claimant succeeded
[2022] EWHC 1171 (QB)·2022·Liability decided at trial
Ms Pickering, who had atrial fibrillation, attended A&E with a cold, white leg; doctors diagnosed a resolved ischaemic event and sent her home on aspirin without heparin or a warning about her stroke risk. She had a major stroke 67 hours later, and the court found that anticoagulation would have prevented it.
A transient blockage in a limb can signal a clot from the heart, and discharging such a patient without anticoagulation or advice was admitted to be negligent. The case turned on causation, with the court accepting expert evidence that heparin would have stopped the clot progressing.
Claim failed
[2015] EWHC 2363 (QB)·2015·Liability decided at trial
A woman attending Medway Maritime Hospital A&E in March 2010 with an evolving stroke was not given aspirin promptly after she deteriorated, which the court found was negligent. The claim still failed because the evidence showed her outcome would have been the same even with aspirin.
Proving that A&E staff were negligent is not enough; the claimant must also show the negligence changed the outcome. Where the stroke was untreatable in time, the claim fails on causation.
Claim failed
[2025] EWHC 2597 (KB)·2025·Liability decided at trial
An orthopaedic surgeon had a second stroke and the on-call stroke consultant, assessing by telephone because the video link was broken, decided against clot-busting treatment. The judge found documentation was poor but that thrombolysis would probably not have changed the outcome, and rejected the defendants' allegation that the claimant had faked his test results.
Poor record-keeping and a remote consultation do not win a case on their own; the claimant must show the missed treatment would have made a real difference. A defence of dishonesty needs solid evidence and failed here.
Claim failed
[2022] EWHC 148 (QB)·2022·Liability decided at trial
A 29-year-old with sudden facial droop, speech problems and arm weakness was told by a junior A&E doctor she had migraine and was not referred to the TIA clinic, which the Trust admitted was a breach. Ritchie J found her March symptoms were in fact hemiplegic migraine, not mini-strokes, so the missed referral did not cause her later stroke.
Admitted breach of duty is not enough; the claimant must prove the correct pathway would have prevented the injury. Detailed findings about the exact sequence of symptoms decided this case.
Claim failed
[2024] EWHC 1800 (KB)·2024·Liability decided at trial
A widower claimed that doctors at Southampton General misdiagnosed his wife's rare cerebral venous thrombosis as a stroke, gave her clot-busting drugs and delayed the correct treatment, leading to her death. The judge found the clinicians acted reasonably on the presentation and that even earlier correct treatment would probably not have saved her.
A tragic outcome after a rare condition is missed does not by itself prove negligence; the question is whether a reasonable body of doctors would have acted the same way on the information available. Causation must be proved separately.
Claim failed
[2016] EWHC 1214 (QB)·2016·Liability decided at trial
A patient with a prosthetic aortic valve had abnormal inflammatory markers on blood tests in November 2010; his GP arranged a routine appointment rather than urgent hospital admission and he suffered a stroke from endocarditis in January 2011. The judge found the results did not ground a reasonable suspicion of endocarditis and the GP's response was one a reasonable body of GPs would take.
Abnormal blood results must be acted on, but the level of urgency required depends on what a reasonable GP would have suspected at the time; a routine review can be acceptable where the overall picture did not point to a serious diagnosis.