Expert Witness Journal Issue 66 April 2026 - Flipbook - Page 13
Shaheen & Anor v Daish [2025]
EWHC 3056 (KB)
– silence in medical records
by Emma Woods at Gatehouse Chambers
The records showed that Mr Ahmed had already
left the surgery to book a follow-up appointment
by the time the x-ray request and supplementary
prescription were 昀椀nalised.
Background
The claim was brought by the wife and son of Mr
Ajaz Ahmed, the Deceased, against Mr Ahmed’s GP.
Mr Ahmed sadly died of lung cancer on 23 February
2023 at the age of 49.
Mr Ahmed did not attend for the x-ray ordered by Dr
Daish. His cancer was diagnosed following a chest
x-ray in January 2020.
The Claimants alleged that an opportunity to
intervene and treat Mr Ahmed’s cancer was missed
as a result of the negligence of his GP, Dr Daish,
who saw the Claimant once at an appointment on 11
February 2019.
The parties agreed that, if an x-ray had been done,
it would have shown an abnormality, a CT would
have been recommended and this would have led
to treatment for cancer. The parties disagreed on
whether the treatment would have been successful
and altered the progress of the cancer.
At the appointment, Dr Daish requested a chest x-ray
using the Integrated Clinical Environment (‘ICE’)
system. A request for an x-ray made via the ICE
system was not acted on, until the patient attended a
walk-in radiology department. There was no followup for the doctor or the patient.
The issues
There were three preliminary issues before
Christopher Kennedy KC sitting in the High Court:
The main factual dispute was whether Dr Daish had
told Mr Ahmed that she had made the request and
what he needed to do.
•
The record for the appointment con昀椀rmed that a
chest x-ray was requested by Dr Daish, but did not
contain an account of any exchange between Mr
Ahmed and Dr Daish about that.
•
Unsurprisingly, Dr Daish had no recollection of the
appointment and she relied upon her usual practice,
which was that she orders an x-ray for a patient, she
informs them that that is what she has done and the
process they need to follow.
•
Was Mr Ahmed told about the chest x-ray
and the need to attend radiology?
The chest x-ray request was in a separate document
and completed 14 minutes after the appointment
started. It appeared in the record of the consultation,
because it is populated to the record automatically
on completion of the request, rather than because
Dr Daish typed it there.
EXPERT WITNESS JOURNAL
Did the Defendant fail to tell/inform the
Deceased that a chest x-ray was required and/
or that the Deceased needed to attend the local
walk-in radiology department in order for the
chest x-ray to be carried out;
If the court 昀椀nds that the Deceased was not
told and/or informed about the chest x-ray
and/or that the Deceased needed to attend the
local walk-in radiology department in order for
the chest x-ray to be carried out, whether the
Deceased would have attended for a chest x-ray
had he been so informed;
Contributory negligence
The Judge found that Mr Ahmed was not told for the
following reasons.
In respect of Mr Ahmed, the Judge held that he had
been worried about his health in late 2018 and early
11
APRIL 2026
