Kevin Bennett v. Coatbridge Health Centre and others [2011] CSOH 9

The pursuer had been a sufferer for epilepsy and had been prescribed vigabatrin (the propriety name of which is Sabril) in 1989 to treat and manage his condition. In 1999, the pursuer attended his GP for a visual fields test, following his concerns about Sabril and its effect on vision after reading a medical article on the subject. The pursuer was told at that time that there were no problems with his vision and no concerns about the medication he was taking. On or around February 2004, the pursuer developed problems with his eyes, which were later diagnosed as diminution of his peripheral vision, caused by his consumption of Sabril. In this action of damages, the pursuer averred that no ordinarily competent GP acting with reasonable care would have failed to send the pursuer for review by ophthalmologist, when he attended in 1999. It was averred that if the pursuer had come off Sabril in 1999, he would have suffered significantly less vision loss than he now does.

In this motion, the defenders submitted that the pursuer's averments were lacking in specification. It was submitted that the defenders had been left in the dark on key details of the referral of the pursuer and the literature which they were averred to have been prudent to consult in 1999.

After hearing submissions, the Lord Ordinary concluded that the action should not be dismissed at this juncture, despite their lack of clarity. The Lord Ordinary noted that it would be wrong to conclude that the pursuer's primary case was bound to fail, without having first heard evidence on the state of knowledge of the effect of the drug in 1999 and how an ordinarily competent general practitioner exercising reasonable care would have acted in the circumstances. Proof before answer allowed.