Eloise Power

Call 2002

Overview

Eloise’s clinical negligence practice encompasses a wide range of cases including amputations, spinal injury, gynaecological/obstetric work, delayed diagnosis and orthopaedic matters. She has been instructed in actions concerning sexual abuse committed by medical practitioners.

Eloise’s focus is on getting the very best result for her client. In the right circumstances, this means fighting hard

Clinical Negligence & Healthcare

“A formidable junior highly regarded for her vast experience and enviable catalogue of high-profile, high-value cases.”
Chambers & Partners 

In May 2022, Cambridge University Press published Lessons from Medicolegal Cases in Obstetrics and Gynaecology, which Eloise co-edited together with Swati Jha, a leading urogynaecologist.

EXPERIENCE & EXPERTISE

Eloise’s clinical negligence practice encompasses a wide range of cases including amputations, spinal injury, gynaecological/ obstetric work, delayed diagnosis and orthopaedic matters. She is regularly instructed in actions concerning sexual abuse committed by medical practitioners. Some examples of her cases are provided below.

Eloise’s focus is on getting the very best result for her client. Sometimes this involves effective and robust negotiation. Sometimes this involves cogent written advocacy. In the right circumstances, this means fighting hard at trial.

In May 2022, Cambridge University Press published Lessons from Medico-Legal Cases in Obstetrics and Gynaecology, which Eloise co-edited together with Swati Jha, a leading urogynaecologist. Eloise is the author of detailed legal commentaries throughout the book, together with a chapter giving an overview of clinical negligence law.

cases & work of note

Brint v Barking, Havering and Redbridge NHS Foundation Trust [2021] EWHC 290 (QB), [2021] 2 WLUK 214, (2021) 180 BMLR 101, [2022] 1 CL 176 : Eloise acted for the successful Defendant in this complex clinical negligence trial arising out of an extravasation injury during a CT scan with contrast. Breach, causation and quantum were all in dispute. The matter spanned multiple disciplines of expert evidence and was pleaded at >£1 million by the Claimant (the Defendant’s position was that this was significantly exaggerated).

JM v GH: delayed diagnosis of breast cancer with terminal consequences. All aspects were in dispute. Eloise acted for the Claimant, who was a lone parent of three young children. The case raised the interesting issue of whether the existing law precludes recovery of childcare costs as part of a “lost years” claim bearing in mind human rights/ non-discrimination arguments. The matter settled prior to trial.

SJM (daughter and executrix of the estate of the late JMM) v Aneurin Bevan University Local Health Board

This case involved an above-knee amputation of the left leg arising out of a complex vascular history. Eloise acted alone on behalf of the Claimant against a QC opponent; the matter settled successfully shortly before trial.

Multiple Claimants v Frimley Park NHS Foundation Trust and others (Eloise acted for the Claimants): The Claimants were women who underwent unnecessary and destructive gynaecological surgery under Miss Cockburn, who was at the time a consultant gynaecologist at the Defendant Trust. Please see here for press coverage.

Dr OS (on behalf of the estate and dependants of AV deceased) v Stockport NHS Foundation Trust and others: AV, a young woman, died from phaeochromocytoma, a rare tumour which has been described in the medical literature as “The Great Mimic” due to the difficulties it poses to the medical profession in diagnosis. The Claimant argued that the Defendant’s doctors failed to diagnose the tumour and failed to treat AV appropriately when she presented at Accident and Emergency on the day of her death. The Defendant argued that this was an unavoidable tragedy. The Claimant, who was represented by a QC, discontinued a few days before trial. Eloise acted alone for the successful Defendant.

Combination Prosthesis Litigation: In the 2000s, a number of surgeons decided to give hip replacement patients a combination of parts from different manufacturers. Some of these “combination prosthesis” patients experienced a very poor outcome, suffering adverse reactions to metal debris and early failure of their implants. Eloise acted for the claimants, who alleged that the surgeons had a duty to inform the patients that the finished product had not been tested as a whole. The matter raised crucial legal questions about the way in which the Montgomery principles should apply in the context of medical devices.

Bains Litigation: This case was a medical abuse matter raising important issues of vicarious liability and non-delegable duty. Eloise represented a group of 27 claimants who were sexually abused by their General Practitioner, acting alone against a QC opponent. She has acted in various similar cases (stand-alone and small groups involving various medical professionals).

Delport Litigation: This was another medical abuse matter on behalf of a group of claimants who were sexually abused by their General Practitioner, involving issues of vicarious liability and non-delegable duty.

JS (on behalf of the estate and dependents of LS deceased) v Barnsley Hospital NHS Foundation Trust: This was a tragic case in which high risk gynaecological surgery led to the death of a mother. The matter raised some important questions: how the very high risk patient should be consented for elective surgery, and whether there are situations where the risks are so great and the benefits so small that surgery should not be offered at all. Eloise acted alone for the Claimant.

DO v Dr Evans:  This matter concerned the amputation of a Claimant’s arm resulting from sepsis. The matter raised particularly complicated issues of causation and required multiple disciplines of expert evidence. Eloise acted alone for the Claimant.

SH v Salisbury NHS Foundation Trust: complications of anaesthesia causing catastrophic spinal cord injury in a patient who had a significant pre-existing disability and was previously in supported accommodation. The matter raised complex issues of causation and quantum. Eloise acted alone for the Claimant.

Re DC: This matter involved the death of young child from either anaphylaxis or asthma. Eloise acted for the defendant in this tragic matter, which required particularly sensitive handling. The matter was resolved by way of a mediation.

Re JF: failure of trans-vaginal mesh in circumstances where it is alleged that the claimant was not properly consented for the use of the mesh. The matter is proceeding in clinical negligence against a hospital trust as well as against the medical device manufacturer (as part of a product liability action).

MB v Dr Raithatha: prescription of Diclofenac to kidney patient with catastrophic consequences including kidney failure, line infection and a resultant deep orthopaedic infection leading to the need for amputation and wheelchair dependency.

SC v Avon and Wiltshire Partnership NHS Trust: failure to treat post-natal depression adequately with the result that the claimant died, leaving a widower and young baby.

Grimstone v Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust: permission granted to appeal to the Court of Appeal. The case related to consent in the context of medical devices: in particular, whether doctors have a duty to tell patients about commercial or other links with a medical device company when using that company’s products.

Recommendations

“Simply excellent in conference. She’s sharp, kind and responsive.”
Chambers & Partners

“Very impressive when grappling with complex issues of evidence and certainly someone you want in your corner.”
Chambers & Partners

“She’s always calm and reassuring, yet keen to fight the most difficult of cases. Her advocacy skills are excellent.”
Chambers & Partners

“Excellent with sensitive clients in cases involving complex and sensitive legal issues.”
Chambers & Partners

“Takes an extremely intelligent approach to cases and has great attention to detail.”
Chambers & Partners

“She’s very thorough and incredibly supportive to clients.”
Chambers & Partners

“She is passionate and razor sharp on her feet. She has a sensible approach to what can often seem like a complicated case.”
Chambers & Partners

“A persuasive and determined advocate. Always impressive.”
Chambers & Partners