Doctor is sued after terminal diagnosis of mum is sent to stranger’s email
A MOTHER who tried to keep her terminal cancer diagnosis from her 12-year-old daughter is suing the family doctor who accidentally leaked her medical records.
The woman has demanded £20,000 damages from GP Carl Deaney for the breach of privacy after her file was emailed to a stranger.
Her lawyers allege in a High Court claim form that she wanted to spare her child the trauma of knowing she had a rare form of the disease – and was on the end of life register.
But she feared the worst after the practice wrote to say that her notes – running to 300 pages – had been disclosed to another patient.
The claim does not say whether, as a result of the blunder, the child learned her mother was dying.
Flashbacks
But it says the other patient kept the email long enough to read a large part of her records – which the patient says included details of her cancer, depression and an eating disorder.
They also set out her history of childhood abuse, domestic abuse, selfharming, a suicide attempt, the effects of divorce, plus her suffering from flashbacks.
She claims the disclosure exacerbated her depression and left her needing expensive sessions of cognitive behaviour therapy.
Dr Deaney, who runs the Marsh Medical Practice in North Somercotes, Lincs, admits the breach.
But he objects to the level of damages
claimed and has issued a defence statement saying the case should have gone to the lower county court.
The mother says she joined Dr Deaney’s practice three years ago – one year after her cancer diagnosis and a year before she was put on the end of life register.
She learned that her history had been shared in July last year when someone at the surgery wrote to her.
Dr Deaney says the woman has “improperly and unreasonably” taken him to the higher court, saying: “This is a modest claim of no complexity in which liability is not in dispute.”
He admits that she is entitled to “modest” compensation and casts doubt on her claims of suffering further depression.
He adds: “It is not admitted this claim has a value in excess of £1,000, much less £20,000.”
The case is due to be heard in the High Court.