KB-2023-001134 - [2025] EWHC 2121 (KB)

Yes. There was a breach of duty in failing, in advance of commencing the sternotomy, to expose and prepare the Claimant’s femoral vessels in order to facilitate cardiopulmonary bypass in the event of the occurrence of the known and foreseeable risk (being a medium to high risk) of aortic injury during the course of the sternotomy.

No. The catastrophic injury to the aorta which eventuated was a known and foreseeable risk (being a medium to high risk) of injury inherent in the sternotomy surgery. That injury eventuated in the absence of negligence on the part of the surgeon.

On the limited evidence available, approximately 13 minutes.

Yes. There was a breach of duty in failing to ensure that the Claimant received advice as to the risks of the proposed surgery in an outpatient appointment in advance of the day of surgery.

There was also a breach of duty in failing to advise the Claimant that prior to commencing the sternotomy the femoral vessels could be exposed and prepared in order to attempt to mitigate the severity of the injuries which might result from the foreseeable and known risk of aortic injury occurring.

Had the Claimant received such advice then, on the balance of probabilities, the Claimant would have elected to proceed with the sternotomy on 3 May 2022 with the option of the femoral vessels being exposed and prepared in advance. She would not have elected to postpone the surgery in any event.