Mother lodges baby damages claim

The mother is seeking damages over the test she received while pregnant

A mother is suing a health board for £100,000 after claiming it failed to tell her the pregnancy could result in a child with a genetic disease.

The woman's son was born with cystic fibrosis although she was told a test for the condition had proved negative.

The 41-year-old is now seeking damages from Lothian Health Board in an action at the Court of Session in Edinburgh.

A judge rejected a move by the health authority to have the case dismissed at a procedural hearing.

The health board argued it was not responsible for the scientists who carried out the screening test which was part of a research study by the human genetics unit at Edinburgh University.

The matter is plainly very important as it is noted in the leaflet that a positive test may, after further testing, result in the patient being offered a termination Judge Lady Stacey

The woman, known as JS, had attended at the Eastern General Hospital, in Edinburgh, in 1994 after getting pregnant and was sent a leaflet on testing for cystic fibrosis.

Judge Lady Stacey said: "The matter is plainly very important as it is noted in the leaflet that a positive test may, after further testing, result in the patient being offered a termination."

She added: "It would in my opinion be open to the patient to think that the hospital, in offering a test, was offering to analyse any samples given."

The judge said it was apparent that other expectant mothers in Edinburgh were offered the same test and did have the analysis carried out by an employee of the health authority.

"Thus there may be circumstances both relating subjectively to the pursuer's perception and objectively to the whole circumstances which affect the question of whether the health board have assumed responsibility and whether it would be fair, just and reasonable to fix them with a duty," she said.

Lady Stacey said she took the view that a hearing of evidence was necessary to decide on any scope of duty owed by the authority to the mother.

The woman said she was told her test was negative but she claims it showed a faint positive result, and although it was a poor quality sample a repeat sample should have been carried out.

She claims that her loss, injury and damage was caused or contributed to by the fault of scientists who examined the saliva sample and maintains they failed to show the standard of care required.