After a stranger’s email was sent with mum’s terminal diagnosis, the doctor was sued.


After a stranger’s email was sent with mum’s terminal diagnosis, the doctor was sued.

A MOTHER is suing her family doctor after her medical records were accidentally leaked while she was attempting to hide her terminal cancer diagnosis from her 12-year-old daughter.

After her file was emailed to a stranger, the woman has sought £20,000 in damages from GP Carl Deaney for breach of privacy.

In a High Court claim form, her lawyers claim that she wanted to spare her child the trauma of learning she had a rare form of the disease and was on the end-of-life list.

However, she was concerned when the practice informed her that her 300-page notes had been shared with another patient.

The claim is silent on whether the child learned her mother was dying as a result of the error.

However, it claims that the other patient kept the email long enough to read a large portion of her records, which included details about her cancer, depression, and an eating disorder, according to the patient.

They also detail her history of childhood abuse, domestic abuse, self-harm, a suicide attempt, divorce, and flashbacks.

She claims the revelation worsened her depression and necessitated costly cognitive behavior therapy sessions.

The Marsh Medical Practice in North Somercotes, Lincs, is run by Dr. Deaney, who admits to the breach.

However, he disputes the amount of damages sought and has filed a defense statement claiming that the case should have been heard in a lower county court.

The mother claims she started seeing Dr. Deaney three years ago, a year after she was diagnosed with cancer and a year before she was placed on the end-of-life list.

In July of last year, she received a letter from the surgery informing her that her medical history had been shared.

Find out what’s going on in your neighborhood by entering your postcode or visiting InYourArea.

“This is a modest claim of no complexity in which liability is not in dispute,” Dr. Deaney claims the woman has taken him to the higher court “improperly and unreasonably.”

He acknowledges that she is entitled to “modest” remuneration, but he doubts her claims of further depression.

“It is not admitted that this claim has a value in excess of £1,000, much less £20,000,” he continues.

The case will be heard in the High Court in the near future.


Comments are closed.