On 3 October 2024, the High Court in Belfast delivered a significant judgement in the case of Martine Norney versus Dr Michael Watt and the Belfast Health and Social Care Trust. Martine Norney was awarded £50,000 in damages after it was determined that her treatment fell short of acceptable medical standards, leading to both physical and psychological harm. The decision addressed major failures in medical diagnosis, procedural execution, and the overall duty of care owed to Norney.
Background of the Case
The case began in 2015 when Martine Norney experienced persistent headaches and neurological issues. Initially, she sought treatment from Dr Thomas Peukert, who attempted to alleviate her symptoms with occipital nerve blocks. However, with no significant improvement, Norney was referred to Dr Michael Watt in July 2016. Dr Watt diagnosed her with Spontaneous Intracranial Hypotension (SIH), an uncommon condition, and suggested that an epidural blood patch would resolve her symptoms. Dr Watt proceeded without ordering any additional diagnostic tests to verify the condition or consider alternative diagnoses.
The diagnosis, therefore, was premature and made without the necessary thoroughness expected of a consultant neurologist. Dr Watt’s approach exemplified a critical lapse in exploring differential diagnoses, which later proved detrimental to Norney’s health and wellbeing.
Breakdown of Damages Awarded
The High Court awarded Martine Norney £50,000 in damages, which was broken down into several components that reflect both the physical and emotional toll of the experience. The damages covered:
- Pain and Suffering: A significant portion of the award was allocated to the physical pain endured during the epidural blood patch procedure, which was described as both severely painful and improperly performed. The court recognised the considerable discomfort and subsequent physical after-effects resulting from Dr Watt’s negligence.
- Emotional Distress: Emotional suffering was another key factor in the damages awarded. Norney had experienced anxiety and distress, not only from the physical pain but also from the knowledge that her treatment had been mishandled. This realisation left her feeling vulnerable and betrayed by the healthcare professionals she had trusted.
- Loss of Amenity: The impact on Norney’s quality of life was also taken into consideration. The ongoing symptoms and the trauma associated with the procedure affected her ability to lead her normal daily life, diminishing her capacity to work and engage in regular activities.
Procedural Failings
The epidural blood patch performed on 21 November 2016 was carried out under circumstances far below acceptable clinical standards. The procedure should have been conducted in a fully sterile environment with appropriate safety precautions, but it was instead performed in a setting that lacked adequate facilities. During the procedure, Norney reported severe pain, which indicated a failure to administer the technique correctly or to follow best practice guidelines for such an invasive intervention.
Justice McAlinden, who presided over the case, pointed out that the failure to conduct the procedure correctly stemmed from a combination of insufficient preparation and an apparent disregard for patient safety. Additionally, the decision to proceed without adequately informing Norney of the associated risks and the lack of exploration of alternative treatment options constituted a major breach of the duty of care.
Importance of Informed Consent
One of the central issues addressed by the court was the principle of informed consent. Justice McAlinden emphasised that patients have the right to be fully informed about their diagnosis, the proposed treatment, and any associated risks. In Norney’s case, Dr Watt failed to adequately explain the risks of the epidural blood patch, leaving her unable to make an informed decision. This failure was instrumental in the court’s finding of negligence.
Informed consent is not merely a procedural requirement; it is a fundamental aspect of medical ethics that ensures patients are active participants in decisions regarding their health. This case serves as a reminder of the significant consequences when healthcare professionals neglect this duty.
Failings of the Trust
The Belfast Health and Social Care Trust was also found liable due to systemic failings that contributed to the substandard care provided to Norney. The Trust is responsible for ensuring that all procedures are conducted within environments that meet clinical standards and that staff adhere to best practices. In this instance, the lack of oversight and inadequate procedural conditions highlighted broader organisational deficiencies.
Lessons for Healthcare Providers
The judgement in Norney v Dr Michael Watt serves as a critical warning to healthcare providers across the UK. It underscores the importance of following proper diagnostic pathways, particularly in cases involving uncommon conditions such as SIH. Healthcare professionals must conduct thorough examinations, consider differential diagnoses, and ensure that patients are adequately informed before proceeding with treatment.
Furthermore, the case reaffirms the importance of maintaining high standards in procedural environments. A failure to adhere to safety protocols not only risks patient health but also exposes medical practitioners and institutions to legal repercussions.
Patient Rights and Medical Accountability
This case is a clear illustration of the rights patients have to receive competent, safe, and well-communicated healthcare. When healthcare systems fail in their duty of care, the courts are ready to intervene to hold them accountable. Martine Norney’s experience demonstrates the damaging effects of medical negligence and reinforces the necessity of transparency and caution in all aspects of patient care.
For patients, it is a reminder that they have the right to question their treatment, seek second opinions, and expect comprehensive information from their healthcare providers. For medical professionals, it is a reminder that every patient interaction carries significant responsibilities—not only for the immediate treatment but also for the longer-term trust between doctor and patient.
If you would like an assessment of a claim, you can use the online form available here without obligation or alternatively you can use the automatic claim calculator.
