Bolitho Qualification
Definition
The qualification to Bolam from Bolitho v. City and Hackney HA (1997) 4 All ER 771: the responsible body of medical opinion relied upon must be logically defensible. In rare cases, a court may reject professional consensus if it cannot withstand logical analysis.
- Case and year
- Bolitho v. City and Hackney HA (1997) 4 All ER 771
- Court
- House of Lords
- Key principle
- Court may reject responsible medical opinion if it cannot withstand logical analysis
Common questions
What is the Bolitho qualification in medical negligence?+
The Bolitho qualification allows a court to reject a medical practice as reasonable even if responsible doctors agree it is proper, but only if the practice cannot withstand logical analysis. The House of Lords established this in Bolitho v. City and Hackney HA (1997) to add a check on the Bolam test, which historically deferred entirely to professional consensus.
When can a court actually reject expert medical opinion under Bolitho?+
A court can reject medical opinion in rare cases where the practice, though held by responsible practitioners, fails logical scrutiny. The court is not bound to accept consensus simply because doctors do it. The logic of the medical practice itself must hold up to judicial examination.
How does Bolitho differ from the original Bolam test?+
Bolam held that a doctor acts reasonably if they follow a practice accepted by a responsible body of doctors. Bolitho qualified this by saying the court may scrutinize whether that consensus is logically defensible. Without Bolitho, courts would rubber-stamp any opinion a professional group held, no matter how shaky the reasoning.
Related terms
- Bolam Test
- The UK standard for medical negligence from Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee (1957) 1 WLR 582: a doctor is not negligent...
- BNS § 106
- Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, reproducing the substance of IPC § 304A (causing death by negligence). Sub-section (1) applies...
- BSA 2023 § 39
- Section 39 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023, the provision governing expert opinion evidence in Indian courts. Replaced Indian Evidence Act 1872...
- Daubert Standard
- The US federal evidentiary standard (Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 1993) requiring that expert testimony be based on scientifically valid methods with...
- Frye Standard
- The US legal test for admissibility of scientific evidence, originating from Frye v. United States (1923), which required that a technique be...
- Helling V. Carey (1974)
- Washington Supreme Court case in which ophthalmologist Thomas Carey was held negligent for not performing tonometry on a patient under 40, despite...
- Jacob Mathew Test
- The framework from Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab (2005) 6 SCC 1 for criminal medical negligence under IPC § 304A (now...
- Martin D'Souza Safeguard
- The procedural protection from Martin D'Souza v. Mohd. Ishfaq (2009) 3 SCC 1 requiring that before registering a criminal case against a...
- Montgomery V. Lanarkshire (2015)
- UK Supreme Court case replacing the Bolam test on risk disclosure with a patient-centred test: a doctor must take reasonable care to...
- NMC (India)
- The National Medical Commission, established under the NMC Act 2019, replacing the Medical Council of India. Comprises four boards (UGMEB, PGMEB, ARB,...
- R V. Turner (1975)
- The foundational UK Court of Appeal authority on expert-witness admissibility. Expert evidence is admissible only where it deals with matters outside the...
Explained in these topics
- Medical Negligence and the Duty of CareThe qualification to Bolam from Bolitho v. City and Hackney HA (1997) 4 All ER 771: the responsible body of medical opinion relied upon must be logically defen...
- The Medico-Legal Expert in CourtThe House of Lords qualification to Bolam from Bolitho v. City and Hackney HA (1997). The court is not bound to accept a medical practice as reasonable if it c...