Medical negligence lawyer Oliver Thorne comments on the tribunal ruling in the Martha Mills case.
Medical negligence lawyer Oliver Thorne was recently invited on to LBC to speak to presenter NIck Ferrari following the disciplinary tribunal’s decision in the tragic case of 13-year-old Martha Mills.
Professor Thompson, a senior doctor involved in Martha’s care, had previously been found guilty of “misconduct which impairs his fitness to practise.” However, due to what were deemed “exceptional circumstances,” a disciplinary tribunal decided that no further action or sanction will be taken against him.
Oliver Thorne, who leads the team at Medical Accident Lawyers and is a regular contributor to LBC, said he wasn’t surprised by the outcome. “Every day we deal with cases where devastating clinical errors occur, yet no punitive action is taken against the healthcare professionals involved. I therefore wasn’t surprised by the tribunal decision that, because this was a single lapse in an otherwise exemplary career, no further action would be taken against the Professor.”
Oliver added, “It’s uncommon for disciplinary measures to be imposed when genuine mistakes are made by medical professionals. The prevailing view is that it’s generally not in the public interest to do so.”
Professor Thompson was the on-duty consultant at King’s College Hospital just two days before Martha died from sepsis. The case garnered national attention and ultimately resulted in the introduction of Martha’s Rule—a policy that gives patients and families the right to request a second medical opinion in English hospitals.
Investigations revealed that Professor Thompson failed to escalate Martha’s care to the intensive care unit or personally assess her condition, even after concerning symptoms like a rash developed. A coroner later concluded that Martha likely would have survived had her worsening condition been recognised sooner and if her parents’ pleas for intensive care had been acted upon.
The General Medical Council had pushed for Professor Thompson to be suspended, arguing that doing so was necessary to uphold professional standards and public confidence. However, the tribunal determined that the lasting damage to his professional reputation was sanction enough and that no additional measures were required.
