TAYLOR AND OTHERS AGAINST DAILLY HEALTH CENTRE AND OTHERS [2018] ScotCS CSOH

BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!

	[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	Scottish Court of Session Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> TAYLOR AND OTHERS AGAINST DAILLY HEALTH CENTRE AND OTHERS [2018] ScotCS CSOH_91 (04 September 2018) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/2018/[2018]_CSOH_91.html Cite as: 2018 SLT 1324, 2018 GWD 28-355, [2018] CSOH 91, [2018] ScotCS CSOH_91

[1] The pursuers are the husband, the two children, and the curator ad litem of the third

child of the late Linda Taylor, who died on 26 March 2009, aged 32. In this action they seek

reparation from the general practice, and the partners thereof, responsible for Mrs Taylor’s

care at the time of her death. The case came before me for a proof on the question of liability

[2] On the morning of 26 March 2009, Mrs Taylor felt unwell. A friend telephoned the

defenders’ surgery on Mrs Taylor’s behalf, and reported that she was suffering from pain in

her chest and down her left arm. Dr Thomas Malloch, a partner in the defenders,

immediately made a home visit to Mrs Taylor. After questioning and examining her,

Dr Malloch concluded that Mrs Taylor was suffering from musculo-skeletal pain and

gastro-intestinal upset. He prescribed analgesics. Approximately one hour later Mrs Taylor

died. The cause of death was coronary artery atherosclerosis. In the present action the

pursuers contend that Dr Malloch was negligent in failing to summon an ambulance to take

Mrs Taylor to hospital to investigate whether she was suffering from an acute coronary

syndrome (ACS; ie, a heart attack), as was in fact the case. It is accepted by the defenders

that if Dr Malloch had diagnosed ACS and summoned an ambulance, Mrs Taylor would not

have died. The defenders contend, however, that Dr Malloch did not depart from usual

practice and that his actions were consistent with those of a general practitioner exercising

[3] At the proof, oral evidence was led from Mr Taylor, the first pursuer; from Ms Shona

Barr, the friend who telephoned the defenders’ surgery; and from Dr Malloch. Statements

by certain other persons were agreed to constitute their evidence without the need for

personal attendance; these included James Meredith, one of the ambulance paramedics who

answered the 999 call referred to below. Expert evidence was led on behalf of the pursuers

from Professor Ian Wall, whose professional qualifications include fellowship of the Royal

College of General Practitioners, and on behalf of the defenders from Dr Niall Cameron,

whose professional qualifications also include fellowship of the RCGP. Both expert

witnesses were amply qualified and experienced to express opinions upon the matters upon

[4] At the time of her death, Mrs Taylor lived with her husband and children in a house

in Dailly, Ayrshire. She had been a patient of the defenders’ practice for about nine years.

She was clinically obese, weighing approximately 104 kilogrammes, and was a smoker,

although the evidence of her daily cigarette consumption was inconclusive. She had been

prescribed Brevinor, a combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP). Her mother, who had also

been a patient of Dr Malloch, had died of cancer but had suffered from angina, although the

age at which this occurred was not clearly established. Mrs Taylor’s GP records contained

[5] Mr Taylor stated that on the morning of his wife’s death she had taken the children

to school and returned to the house. In the meantime he had gone to Girvan to buy pet

food, and also baguettes for his and Mrs Taylor’s breakfast. While in Girvan he received a

call from Ms Barr telling him that she was with Mrs Taylor who did not feel well. Mr Taylor

advised her to call the doctor; Ms Barr reported that Mrs Taylor did not wish to. A few

minutes later Ms Barr phoned again, asking him to return to Dailly. Mr Taylor went home

without completing his purchase of baguettes. He was accompanied by two friends, Billy

Robertson and Stacey Slaven. On his return he found Mrs Taylor sitting on the couch in her

pyjamas. She stated that she had pains across her chest and down her left side. She looked

pale and sweaty and seemed to be struggling to talk. He asked Ms Barr to call the

defenders’ surgery, which she did, requesting a house call and stating that Mrs Taylor had

[6] Dr Malloch arrived at the house about five minutes later. Ms Barr let him in and

then went into the kitchen. Mrs Taylor was lying on the couch in the living room.

Mr Taylor looked on while Dr Malloch questioned and examined Mrs Taylor. Dr Malloch

asked her what was wrong and she said she had pains across her chest and travelling down

her left side. She made a gesture with her hand, indicating pain in her chest. Dr Malloch

examined Mrs Taylor using a stethoscope, and attempted to measure her blood pressure

with a cuff on her left arm. He could not obtain a reading from that arm but obtained one

from her right arm. He did not touch any part of her body with his hands. When he asked

if she had been to the toilet, she said that she had and that her stool had been quite soft. She

had then given a “dry boak”, ie a dry heave. There was no discussion of what she had had

to eat that day, but according to Mr Taylor she had had nothing because he was bringing

breakfast from Girvan. Dr Malloch did not question her about her family medical history.

Having carried out his examination, he stated that Mrs Taylor had sickness and diarrhoea

and indicated that there would be a prescription waiting for her at the surgery in about

15 minutes. He then left. Ms Barr went to the surgery and collected the prescription.

Mr Taylor considered that if his wife had been advised that she required hospital admission

[7] After Dr Malloch left, Mrs Taylor went to bed. When Ms Barr returned with the

prescription she sat in the bedroom with Mrs Taylor while Mr Taylor made coffee.

Billy Robertson and Stacey Slaven were in the kitchen with him. While he was making

coffee, he heard a shout from Ms Barr that Mrs Taylor had taken “a right bad turn”. When

he entered the bedroom he observed that she was turning grey. Somebody (Mr Taylor could

not remember who) phoned the surgery and was told to phone 999, which they did. They

were told to try to carry out CPR while waiting for the ambulance to arrive. After the

ambulance arrived, one of the paramedics told him that Mrs Taylor had died. Dr Malloch

was informed, and he returned to the house to pronounce her dead.

[8] Mr Taylor was questioned about his history of alcohol and drug abuse. He accepted

that he was a registered alcoholic, that he had been a heroin user until about 1999 when

Mrs Taylor got him clean, and that thereafter he had had a methadone prescription. He

denied having taken heroin again until he relapsed on the day of Mrs Taylor’s funeral. He

specifically denied that he had been taking drugs along with Billy Robertson and Stacey

Slaven on the day of Mrs Taylor’s death, or that when Ms Barr phoned him that morning he

[9] Ms Barr had been a close friend of Mrs Taylor for many years, and was in the habit of

visiting her at home every morning. Ms Barr’s partner was Mrs Taylor’s brother. On that

morning she had received a call from Mrs Taylor at about 9.30 asking her not to come as she

(Mrs Taylor) did not feel well and was going back to bed. However Mrs Taylor called again

and asked her to come, stating that she could not stand on her legs and that Mr Taylor was

out buying drugs. When Ms Barr arrived at about 10 am, Mrs Taylor was lying on the

couch. She complained that she was cold, and that she had pain radiating from her back

through to her chest. Ms Barr wanted to call the doctor but Mrs Taylor asked her to call

Mr Taylor first. She did so, and Mr Taylor said that he was buying pet food and something

else. After that call, Mrs Taylor began to complain about pain in her left arm, and Ms Barr

called the doctor’s surgery. She spoke to a receptionist and reported that Mrs Taylor had

pain in her back and chest, travelling down her left arm. At this time Mrs Taylor looked

pale. Dr Malloch arrived shortly afterwards at about the same time as Mr Taylor returned

home with three friends (the two individuals already mentioned plus Paul Green). Ms Barr

went into the kitchen with the others and did not hear the conversation between Dr Malloch

[10] Dr Malloch stayed for about 15-20 minutes. After he left, Mr Taylor came into the

kitchen and told Ms Barr that the doctor had diagnosed sickness, diarrhoea and heartburn.

At this time Mrs Taylor looked okay. Ms Barr went out to pick up the prescription, together

with a bottle of Lucozade that Mrs Taylor had requested. When she got back to the house

Mrs Taylor was in bed. She continued to complain about pains in her chest and took the

tablets that had been prescribed. Ms Barr left at about 1 pm to pick up her children from

school. Before leaving she had been in the bedroom with Mrs Taylor and Stacey Slaven.

Mrs Taylor looked fine when she left. Mr Taylor was under the influence of drugs. Soon

afterwards, Ms Barr received a call from Stacey Slaven which was impossible to understand.

She returned to the house to be told by the ambulance crew that Mrs Taylor had died. She

too considered that if Mrs Taylor had been advised to go to hospital in an ambulance she

[11] Dr Malloch was at the surgery when the call from Ms Barr came in. The report, as he

recalled, was of Mrs Taylor suffering from chest pains and pain in the left arm, which he

regarded as concerning. On arrival at the house, he began by asking Mrs Taylor open

questions to obtain a description of her symptoms from her directly. She described the pain

as a stabbing pain, radiating through to her back. She pointed to the upper part of her

abdominal area. When asked how long she had had the pain she said that it started after she

had a tuna sandwich at breakfast time. She stated that she had been sick and had soft stool.

She was not sweaty or distressed. She was not breathless. He asked her to remove her

upper clothing and palpated her chest. He used a stethoscope to listen to her heart and

lungs, and found no abnormality. Her pulse was regular and her blood pressure was

borderline. Dr Malloch was able to get blood pressure readings in both arms with no

difference between them. Mrs Taylor complained of tenderness between her shoulder

blades and in the left trapezius muscle, and in the middle of her back. It became apparent

that she also had tenderness in her lower sternum. In response to a question she confirmed

that she had pain in her left arm. He did not require to ask her about her family history

because he knew her father and had known her mother before she died. He did not think

that her mother’s heart disease had had premature onset. He considered and rejected a

diagnosis of myocardial infarction. Tenderness over her muscles indicated a muscular

cause. He considered that the site of the pain indicated by Mrs Taylor was the epigastrium,

but he could find no evidence of a problem with any of the abdominal organs.

[12] When carrying out his examination, Dr Malloch had been aware of the need to

exclude heart malfunction. Left arm pain was a common complaint which did not usually

have a cardiac cause. Chest pain associated with cardiac issues was normally described as a

heavy, constricting pain, and not as a stabbing pain going through to the back. Tenderness,

as opposed to pain, was not normally associated with a cardiac cause. On the basis of the

history given to him by Mrs Taylor and his findings on examination, Dr Malloch diagnosed

muscular pain, with sickness and diarrhoea. In so doing he took account of Mrs Taylor’s

[13] Dr Malloch was in the house for around 15 minutes. On his return to the surgery he

[14] Dr Malloch was called back to the house by the ambulance crew to confirm the

death. There were a number of people milling around and one of them was drinking from a

beer can. The atmosphere was hostile. He examined Mrs Taylor and certified her death. He

spoke briefly to Mr Taylor but could not remember what had been said.

[15] Mr Meredith was the driver of the ambulance sent in response to the 999 call from

the house, which was received at 1.17pm. On arrival he found a lot of people there,

including Mr Taylor and a number of young children. It was “pandemonium”. Mrs Taylor

was lying on top of two or three mattresses, which meant that any CPR that had been

attempted could not have been effective. Mr Meredith and his colleague carried out a

standard procedure to check airways, breathing and pulse. They attached a heart monitor

and found Mrs Taylor to be asystolic. Mr Meredith formed the view that Mrs Taylor had

been dead for a short while before the ambulance crew had arrived, but could not say for

[16] For the purposes of the present action, the crucial factual evidence consists of the

information sought and obtained by Dr Malloch prior to making his diagnosis at the end of

the house visit. The only other person present while Dr Malloch questioned and examined

Mrs Taylor was Mr Taylor. As there are inconsistencies between the evidence of Mr Taylor

and of Dr Malloch as to what Mrs Taylor said, and what Dr Malloch did, it is necessary for

[17] I begin by considering the evidence of Mr Taylor. In certain notable respects it is at

odds with the evidence of Ms Barr. According to Mr Taylor, he received two phone calls

from Ms Barr and had arrived home in response before Ms Barr called the surgery.

According to Ms Barr, there was only one call to Mr Taylor, following which she called the

surgery, so that Dr Malloch arrived at about the same time as Mr Taylor returned home.

More strikingly, the accounts of Mr Taylor and Ms Barr of what happened after Ms Barr

returned with Mrs Taylor’s prescription are entirely different. According to Mr Taylor,

Ms Barr was with Mrs Taylor in the bedroom when Mrs Taylor began to turn grey and

subsequently died: he would “swear on his weans’ life that she was there”. According to

Ms Barr, on the other hand, she had left the house at a time when Mrs Taylor looked “fine”.

[18] In relation to the latter discrepancy, I have no difficulty in preferring the evidence of

Ms Barr. She gave her evidence in a straightforward manner and was able to provide

further detail when asked to do so. Her account of leaving the house to pick up her children

and returning after receiving an incomprehensible telephone call from Stacey Slaven was

coherent and credible. In contrast, Mr Taylor was dogmatic on many matters but vague on

others. It is significant that he could not remember who had made the 999 call at 1.17 pm,

although he appeared to think that it must have been either himself or Ms Barr. A transcript

of that call was lodged. The identity of the caller, who claimed to be a first-aider, was not

disclosed, although he or she referred to Mrs Taylor as “my friend Linda”, so it was

presumably not Mr Taylor. There is no record of any call having been made at this time to

the defenders’ surgery. I am satisfied that Ms Barr’s account of events is reliable and that

Mr Taylor’s is not. It may be that his recollection of events at the time of Mrs Taylor’s death

was affected by having consumed drink or drugs; I make no finding on that, but I do not

accept that his recollection is accurate. I find that during the minutes prior to her death

Mrs Taylor was either alone in the bedroom or in the company of the person who made the

999 call, and that Mr Taylor was with one or two (or possibly more) other friends in the

[19] Nor do I see any reason to reject Ms Barr’s evidence of what had happened earlier in

the morning. Here too she gave a straightforward account which appeared to me to be

credible and reliable. Again Mr Taylor’s evidence was, in my view, unsatisfactory. It was

noteworthy that he did not mention that he had brought friends back with him until it was

put to him in cross-examination. His account of abandoning the baguettes in mid-purchase

was curious, especially as he had told Ms Barr that he was on his way home. I conclude that

I cannot rely on Mr Taylor’s evidence of this part of the day’s events either. In particular, I

do not accept as reliable his assertion that Mrs Taylor had not eaten anything that morning.

[20] Turning now to the critical conversation between Dr Malloch and Mrs Taylor, I

likewise have no difficulty in preferring the evidence of Dr Malloch. His account of what he

was told by Mrs Taylor was detailed and consistent with the notes he made immediately

afterwards. I reject a contention on behalf of the pursuers that the reference in his notes to

being told that “it” came on after eating a tuna sandwich demonstrated that he had been

told on arrival by Mrs Taylor that she had chest pain going down her left arm. I accept his

explanation that this was not what the note was intended to mean, and that Mrs Taylor did

not mention pain in her left arm until specifically asked about it. In so doing I reject as

unreliable Mr Taylor’s evidence to the contrary. I also accept Dr Malloch’s evidence on

other points of difference, namely (i) that Mrs Taylor pointed to her upper abdominal area

as the location of her pain; (ii) that she told Dr Malloch that she had eaten a tuna sandwich;

(iii) that he obtained a reading for her blood pressure in both arms; and (iv) that his

examination included palpation of her chest and other areas where tenderness was

[21] It follows that my assessment of the expert evidence must proceed on the basis of

Dr Malloch’s account of the home visit and not, where different, that of Mr Taylor.

[22] Professor Wall provided a written opinion dated 27 October 2016, based upon

documentary information including an affidavit from Mr Taylor, the GP records, the

pleadings in the case, a witness statement given by Mr Taylor to the police on 26 March

2009, Dr Malloch’s answers to written questions from the pursuers’ legal team, a

precognition from Mr Meredith, and a supplementary precognition from Mr Taylor. In

certain respects the factual basis upon which Professor Wall provided this opinion differs

from what I have found to be established in evidence. He noted various differences between

the account given by Mr Taylor on the one hand and Dr Malloch on the other, although it is

not entirely clear on what basis he proceeded. He expressed the following view (paragraph

“Whilst Mrs Taylor’s presentation was not typical, I am of the opinion that

Dr Malloch’s conclusion that she was suffering from musculoskeletal chest pain,

largely on the basis of chest wall tenderness, was unsafe. In discriminating between

possible causes of chest pain, the history is crucial and I am of the opinion that the

fact both [ie Mr Taylor and Dr Malloch] agreed that she had chest pain, which

radiated down her left arm and was of relatively sudden onset, cannot be ignored.

There is Mr Taylor’s evidence that his wife was breathless. With risk factors of

smoking, obesity, a family history of heart disease and the fact that Mrs Taylor was

on the COCP, it was not possible to safely exclude serious underlying causes of an

acute coronary syndrome or a pulmonary embolism, despite her relatively young

age, and that the only safe management was to admit Mrs Taylor to hospital via a

999 ambulance. No ordinarily competent doctor exercising ordinary skill and care

[23] Professor Wall and Dr Cameron held a meeting by telephone on 6 June 2018 and

produced an agreed statement. They had been asked to consider two scenarios (A and B)

broadly corresponding to Mr Taylor’s and Dr Malloch’s respective versions of events, and to

answer certain questions in relation to these. The pursuers’ allegations of negligence were

noted to be as follows: (1) failure to detect that the deceased’s symptoms were consistent

with ACS; (2) failure to have been aware that the deceased was at risk of deep vein

thrombosis and therefore pulmonary embolism due to her obesity and on the COCP, and (3)

failure to summon an immediate blue light ambulance. The questions, with Professor Wall’s

“(i) Were the deceased’s symptoms, on this hypothesis, consistent with ACS?

We are agreed her symptoms were not consistent with ACS. However, Professor

Wall is of the opinion that it would be unusual for a patient to complain of sudden

onset chest pain and it be explained on the basis of a muscle strain whilst retching

with tenderness in three different anatomical positions. Some other condition

needed to be considered, and in view of other risk factors, this was a potentially fatal

(ii) On this hypothesis, with regard to each of the three assertions of negligence

above, was there a usual and normal practice in 2009? If so what was this, and what

Professor Wall is of the opinion that it was not negligent with respect to (1) above but

it was negligent with respect to (2) and (3) because a pulmonary embolism needed to

be excluded and the only safe way to do this was to admit the deceased to hospital

[24] In a letter dated 1 July 2018, Professor Wall provided the following clarification of his

“In the section headed ‘the disputed facts’ and Scenario B set out in paragraph 2, I

had stated that the symptoms were not consistent with ACS. In coming to this

conclusion, I had based my opinion on Dr Malloch having clarified that the deceased

did not have chest pain and never had but that the pain was in the epigastrium ie

that the claim of chest pain made by a relative over the telephone had been

withdrawn. If there was a history of chest pain going down the left arm, then as

stated above, this was consistent with ACS. If there is any suspicion of ACS or other

serious cause, or any concern regarding the patient’s general well being urgent

[25] In his evidence to the court, Professor Wall confirmed his view that the symptoms

described by Ms Barr in her call to the surgery were typical of ACS. A pain in the area of the

epigastrium was consistent with ACS but not a typical feature of it. The symptoms noted by

Dr Malloch on arrival (sickness, tenderness in the shoulders and sternum, pain in the neck

and arm) were consistent with ACS. Tenderness and pain when moving her neck were not

however typical of ACS and would seem to have some other cause. Pain in the middle of

her back was typical. Diarrhoea was consistent but not typical. The lack of abnormalities on

examination was neutral. A family history of heart disease was relevant if the onset had

been before age 60. If Mrs Taylor had pointed to her epigastrium as the source of the pain,

Dr Malloch had to ask specific questions such as whether she had pain down her arm. He

had to proceed on the assumption that the initial report by Ms Barr of chest pain had not

been withdrawn. Before diagnosing a musculo-skeletal cause for tenderness in three

different places, it was necessary to identify a cause for this. The symptoms described by

Mrs Taylor did not exclude ACS and it was therefore necessary to call an ambulance.

[26] Pulmonary embolism had been another potential cause of Mrs Taylor’s pain: there

were various high risk factors including smoking, obesity and being on a COCP. The

symptoms of pulmonary embolism were chest pain on one side and in the back,

breathlessness, coughing up blood and sudden onset in much the same way as reported

here. If it could not be excluded, the only appropriate course was to summon an ambulance.

There was nothing in the records to indicate that Dr Malloch had considered this diagnosis.

[27] In cross-examination, Professor Wall agreed that a high percentage of chest pain

presentations did not have a cardiac cause. He also agreed that some of the symptoms

described were not typical of ACS, including a stabbing pain in the stomach area, vomiting,

diarrhoea, and tenderness (as opposed to pain) at the sites identified, and that some of the

symptoms were not consistent with ACS. He further agreed that some of the symptoms of

pulmonary embolism were not present in Scenario B, but maintained his view that

[28] Dr Cameron provided a written opinion dated 20 January 2017, based upon

documentary material including Mrs Taylor’s GP and hospital records, the pleadings, and a

precognition, further comment and a report on Mrs Taylor’s care by Dr Malloch. His

opinion was that the decision not to require immediate hospital admission of Mrs Taylor

was appropriate and in keeping with usual and standard practice. He concluded (page 13):

“The aim in the general practice setting is to exclude a significant condition causing

chest pain which needs immediate intervention from other more common but less

serious causes of chest pain. It is my opinion that given the recorded history and

findings Dr Malloch’s management was appropriate and there were no reported

cardiac symptoms (characteristic ischaemic chest pain, abnormality of pulse rate or

rhythm, hypotension, dizziness, unexplained nausea, sweating or breathlessness)

and no further relevant history or findings to suggest the patient was suffering an

acute ischaemic event. I do not consider that it would have been in keeping with

usual practice to refer the patient as an emergency to exclude acute ischaemic disease

on the basis of the recorded history and examination findings.”

Dr Cameron further considered, under reference to the Wells score and Geneva score used

to predict deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism, that Mrs Taylor had a very low

probability for pulmonary embolism (PTE), and that Dr Malloch’s management was

[29] In the agreed statement produced after his telephone discussion with Professor Wall,

“(i) Were the deceased’s symptoms, on this hypothesis, consistent with ACS?

Dr Cameron is of the opinion that the deceased’s symptoms on this hypothesis were

not consistent with ACS or PTE and that Dr Malloch’s assessment that these

symptoms were secondary to musculo-skeletal pain and gastro-intestinal upset was

reasonable. Dr Cameron notes that the patient was haemodynamically stable and

that Dr Malloch specifically sought to exclude other possible causes including ACS

(ii) On this hypothesis, with regard to each of the three assertions of negligence

above, was there a usual and normal practice in 2009? If so what was this, and what

Dr Cameron is of the opinion that immediate admission was not mandated and

Dr Malloch’s management was in keeping with usual and normal practice.”

[30] In his evidence to the court, Dr Cameron reiterated that it was not usual practice to

refer all patients complaining of chest pain to hospital as an emergency. As Mrs Taylor was

only 32, with no previous history of cardiac problems, it was unlikely at first sight that her

pain would have a cardiac cause, but it was necessary to obtain a history, identify significant

areas and undertake an examination to try to confirm or refute such a hypothesis. Left arm

pain could be present with many non-cardiac chest pains. A stabbing pain in the stomach

area would most often have a gastric cause. Tenderness was not consistent with a cardiac

cause because cardiac pain was unaffected by palpation. It was characteristic of cartilage

inflammation. Pain on movement was indicative of a musculo-skeletal cause. A family

history of heart disease was relevant only, in relation to females, if the onset was before

[31] The presenting features on examination did not indicate a likelihood of pulmonary

embolism, for which the main feature would be breathlessness, along with sudden collapse,

blood stained spit, low blood pressure and a feeling of being unwell. Mrs Taylor’s age also

[32] In cross-examination, Dr Cameron accepted that if a patient’s presentation, history

and examination raised even a small likelihood of ACS, they should be admitted to hospital.

Chest pain did not have to be accompanied by breathlessness. It was normal practice to

inquire about family history. Although the epigastrium was relatively close to the heart, it

was not adjacent. Normal pulse and blood pressure were reassuring signs, despite the

[33] On behalf of the pursuers it was submitted that Dr Malloch had a duty to exclude

ACS and that if there remained any possibility of it, he had to refer Mrs Taylor to hospital.

He had failed adequately to address the risk factors, including in particular her mother’s

history of angina. His diagnosis of musculoskeletal pain was illogical. Pain in three distinct

areas could not have been caused by retching. Dr Malloch had accepted that his diagnosis

remained “uncertain”; there was no convincing evidence about any event accounting for all

of the symptoms described by Mrs Taylor that was sufficient to displace the possibility of

ACS. The epigastrium was close to the bottom of the heart. Mrs Taylor was obese and

sitting down when she made the gesture to her body. Given the proximity of the

epigastrium to the heart, it was reasonable to infer that she was in fact pointing to her chest.

There was very little in the reported symptoms to suggest a gastrointestinal issue.

[34] It was a matter of agreement between the expert witnesses that there were features of

Mrs Taylor’s presentation that were either typical of or at least consistent with ACS. The

typical features were chest pain and pain down the left arm, vomiting, and pain in the

mid-thorax posteriorly. The consistent features were pain/tenderness in the lower sternum,

pain in the epigastrium, pain in the back of the neck going down the arm, and pain over the

left trapezius. In these circumstances there remained a possibility of ACS such that a referral

to hospital by ambulance was mandated. No ordinarily competent GP would have failed to

[35] In addition, Mrs Taylor had risk factors, of which Dr Malloch was aware, for

pulmonary embolism. He failed to consider the significance of her COCP prescription. It

was not in accordance with usual and normal practice to disregard these risks. No

[36] Finally, it was submitted, Dr Malloch failed to obtain Mrs Taylor’s informed consent

to the course of action which he decided to take. He did not inform her that her symptoms

and risk factors could mean the presence of ACS and that if she wanted to exclude ACS as a

cause, hospital admission by ambulance was required. She had been entitled to be told this

information to allow her to make her own assessment. This failure was a breach of the 2008

General Medical Council Guidelines, and a breach of the duty incumbent upon him as set

out by the Supreme Court in Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board [2015] AC 1430. It is

reasonable to conclude that Mrs Taylor would have wished to be made aware of the risks of

ACS and her options to exclude it. It was likely that if she had been advised of the risks of

ACS and pulmonary embolism, she would have agreed to hospital admission by ambulance.

[37] On behalf of the defenders it was submitted that the present case was one in which

the negligence was said to lie in a conscious choice among available courses of action, of the

kind discussed by Lord Hodge in Honisz v Lothian Health Board 2008 SC 235 (at paragraph

39). Dr Cameron’s view that, upon the history supplied to Dr Malloch by Mrs Taylor

together with her presentation and his examination of her, she did not require to be

admitted to hospital in connection with ACS or pulmonary embolism was logical. There

was no basis for rejecting it as being incapable of being logically supported.

[38] Although family history was relevant, it was less relevant than Mrs Taylor’s

relatively young age. Dr Malloch had taken into account Mrs Taylor’s social/lifestyle factors.

Where he had been given a clear history directly by the patient which did not include chest

pain, it was open to him to be satisfied with that, without requiring to inquire whether a

statement about chest pain made by a third party on the phone had been withdrawn. The

proper approach was to look at the constellation of symptoms elicited on history,

presentation and examination in the round. On the information available to Dr Malloch he

was entitled to proceed as he had done. The fact that Dr Malloch’s diagnosis of

musculo-skeletal pain had not been resolved when he left was not indicative of negligence;

Dr Cameron had expressed a firm view that tenderness on palpation was not consistent with

a cardiac cause. Professor Wall had agreed that Mrs Taylor’s complaint of pain when

moving her neck from side to side was not consistent with ACS but was instead suggestive

[39] As regards pulmonary embolism, Dr Malloch had been entitled to exclude it. The

symptoms elicited by him from Mrs Taylor were not indicative of pulmonary embolism, and

her age mitigated against it. There was accordingly no need to consider the fact that

[40] Finally, the pursuers’ case based upon failure to obtain consent was irrelevant.

Montgomery was not in point. A distinction fell to be drawn between (i) the doctor’s role

when considering possible investigatory or treatment options, and (ii) the doctor’s role in

discussing with the patient any recommended treatment and possible alternatives. The first

remained an exercise of professional judgment, and no duty existed to discuss that judgment

with the patient or seek consent to treat the patient in accordance with it.

[41] The test enunciated by Lord President Clyde in Hunter v Hanley 1955 SC 200 at 205

for establishing negligence on the part of a doctor is well known: whether he has been

proved to be guilty of such failure as no doctor of ordinary skill would be guilty of if acting

with ordinary care. Lord President Clyde went on, at page 206, to set out in greater detail

what requires to be proved in cases in which deviation from ordinary professional practice

is alleged: firstly, that there is a usual and normal practice; secondly, that the defender did

not adopt that practice; and thirdly, that the course adopted was one which no professional

man of ordinary skill would have taken if he had been acting with ordinary care. In some

cases the court will be presented with evidence of two opposing schools of thought as to

what is usual and normal practice, and in such cases the approach summarised by Lord

Hodge in Honisz v Lothian Health Board (above) must be adopted. But in my opinion this is

not such a case. It seemed to me that there was very little dispute between Professor Wall

and Dr Cameron (and indeed Dr Malloch) as to what would be usual and normal practice in

relation to a decision as to urgent referral to hospital of a patient complaining of chest pains.

Professor Wall and Dr Cameron were in agreement that not every chest pain is indicative of

a cardiac cause, and that not every complaint of chest pain has to be urgently referred. They

were also, however, in agreement that if history, presentation and examination suggest even

a small likelihood of a cardiac cause, the patient should be referred, because of the

potentially fatal consequences if the pain has such a cause. The issue in the present case can,

therefore, be stated quite succinctly: would any ordinarily competent general medical

practitioner exercising reasonable skill and care in possession of the information provided

by Mrs Taylor’s history, presentation and examination have referred her as an emergency to

hospital? On that issue the experts differed, and I must decide which view to prefer.

[42] I have come to the conclusion that the opinion of Dr Cameron is to be preferred,

because it is more securely founded upon the symptoms which I have found, as a matter of

fact, to have been reported to Dr Malloch by Mrs Taylor or observed by him on examination.

I have in mind in particular the following features relied upon by Dr Cameron:

 Mrs Taylor described the pain as a stabbing pain rather than a crushing pain, which

 Complaints of tenderness, as opposed to pain, are not consistent with a cardiac cause

because cardiac pain is unaffected by palpation. Tenderness is, on the other hand, a

In these important respects, the symptoms described by Mrs Taylor not only were not

typical features of cardiac chest pain but were inconsistent with a cardiac cause.

[43] One of the significant areas of disagreement between the experts was as to whether

Mrs Taylor should properly be regarded as having been complaining of chest pain.

Professor Wall’s final position, as I understood it, was that in the absence of an express

withdrawal of the complaint of chest pain made on her behalf by Ms Barr in her phone call

to the surgery, Dr Malloch had to proceed on the basis that this was such a complaint, and

that it was not therefore safe to exclude a cardiac cause. Dr Cameron, on the other hand,

placed greater emphasis on the description given by Mrs Taylor herself, and in particular on

her gesture, described by Dr Malloch as indicating her upper epigastrium rather than her

chest. I accept Dr Cameron’s view that pain in the upper abdomen is more likely to be

associated with a non-cardiac cause. The pursuers’ submission that in interpreting

Mrs Taylor’s gesture account should be taken of her obesity and seated position seems to me

to amount to a suggestion that Dr Malloch ought to some extent to have mistrusted the

description that he was being given; there was no support for such an approach in the view

of either of the expert witnesses. What seems to be clear is that Mrs Taylor’s gesture did not

unequivocally indicate pain in the area of her heart. Dr Cameron emphasised that a

non-cardiac cause was supported by a number of other factors including those that I have

already mentioned, many of which were inconsistent with a cardiac cause. In these

circumstances I prefer his view that Dr Malloch was entitled, taking into account all of the

information elicited, to conclude that the gesture should be interpreted as a complaint of

pain in the epigastrium and not in the chest. Professor Wall’s view that Dr Malloch had to

go further to exclude a cardiac cause appears to me to disregard the steps that Dr Malloch

did indeed take to exclude such a cause, including questioning and examination, and the

fact that many of those steps disclosed information which was not consistent with a cardiac

cause. Assessing his evidence as a whole, I find that Professor Wall has not fully addressed

the various respects in which the information available to Dr Malloch was not consistent

[44] Nor, in my view, does Dr Cameron’s view fail to take account of any other features

indicative of ACS. Dr Malloch’s questioning of Mrs Taylor did elicit a complaint of pain

down her left arm but I accept Dr Cameron’s evidence that left arm pain occurs in

association with many types of chest pain. Although vomiting was agreed to be a typical

feature of ACS, it could also have a gastric explanation. Diarrhoea was agreed not to be a

typical feature of ACS. Professor Wall placed emphasis on the risk factors affecting

Mrs Taylor, of which Dr Malloch was undoubtedly aware, including the medical history of

Mrs Taylor’s mother. Again I am persuaded by Dr Cameron’s view that it was appropriate

to have regard to the fact that Mrs Taylor, although obese and a smoker, was only 32, and

that even if her mother had suffered from angina at an age below 65, this was not of itself

[45] With regard to the contention that Dr Malloch ought in any event to have referred

Mrs Taylor urgently to hospital because of the risk that she was suffering from a pulmonary

embolism, I again prefer the evidence of Dr Cameron. The descriptions (above) given by the

two experts of the symptoms of pulmonary embolism were broadly similar. Professor

Wall’s view that it could not be excluded appeared to be based upon (i) Mrs Taylor’s pain

being properly characterised as chest pain (which, as I have found, was not how it was

described to Dr Malloch), and (ii) the presence of risk factors, including in particular the fact

that she was taking a COCP. However, as Dr Cameron explained, the symptoms most

characteristic of pulmonary embolism were not present and in these circumstances I accept

his conclusion that it was not necessary for Dr Malloch to arrange an urgent hospital

admission to exclude this diagnosis. That conclusion is reinforced by his evidence, which I

accept, based upon the Wells Score and Geneva Score, that Mrs Taylor had a very low

[46] For these reasons I hold that in deciding not to admit Mrs Taylor to hospital as a

matter of urgency, Dr Malloch did not depart from usual and normal practice, and did not

fall below the standard reasonably to be expected of an ordinarily competent general

practitioner exercising reasonable skill and care. In short, Dr Malloch’s diagnosis was

wrong, but it was not negligent. The pursuers’ case accordingly fails.

[47] Finally, I reject the pursuers’ contention that Dr Malloch was in breach of any duty

incumbent upon him by virtue of the decision of the Supreme Court in Montgomery v

Lanarkshire Health Board (above). In that case the court held inter alia that the doctor was

under a duty to take reasonable care to ensure that the patient was aware of any material

risks involved in any recommended treatment, and of any reasonable alternative or variant

treatments. But at paragraph 82 the court drew a clear distinction between

“…on the one hand, the doctor’s role when considering possible investigatory or

treatment options and, on the other, her role in discussing with the patient any

recommended treatment and possible alternatives, and the risks of injury which may

The former role was described (paragraph 83) as “an exercise of professional skill and

judgment: what risks of injury are involved in an operation, for example, is a matter falling

[48] The present case is concerned with the first of the two roles described in paragraph

82 above, ie Dr Malloch’s consideration of investigatory or treatment options. No issue

arose that required discussion of possible alternatives. Had Dr Malloch – or the hypothetical

ordinarily competent doctor exercising reasonable skill and care – decided that Mrs Taylor’s

history, presentation and examination required her to be admitted urgently to hospital, there

would have been nothing to discuss, and the same applies to the decision which Dr Malloch

made that urgent admission was not necessary. It was a decision falling within the exercise

of professional skill and judgment, and not a decision as to which of two or more alternative

forms of treatment, carrying differing risks, ought to be undertaken. To attempt to apply the

ratio of Montgomery to the circumstances of the present case would, in my view, be to extend

it significantly beyond what the Supreme Court regarded as the scope of the duty of care

[49] In accordance with the defenders’ motion, I shall sustain the defenders’ second and

third pleas in law, repel the pursuers’ pleas, and grant decree of absolvitor.

Scottish Court of Session Decisions