Select country
Membership information
0800 561 9000
Medicolegal advice
0800 561 9090
Refine my search

Alleged failure to complete a baby check

Post date: 13/05/2021 | Time to read article: 7 mins

The information within this article was correct at the time of publishing. Last updated 07/07/2021

By Dr Sophie Haroon, Medicolegal Consultant, and Simon Evans, Litigation Solicitor, Medical Protection

Baby H (later called Child H) was born at term by normal vaginal delivery. He had no family history of note. At 24 hours old he had his newborn baby check and the hip examination was recorded as normal.

Eight weeks later he was seen by Dr B for his six to eight-week baby check (subsequently referred to as ‘the baby check’). This was undertaken and documented in his medical records, but Dr B did not complete the standard template where all details of the examination could be recorded and the mother had forgotten Baby H’s red book (PCHR). He also addressed the mother’s concerns about a strawberry naevus on the baby’s arm. Baby H’s consultation lasted 15 minutes, as recorded by the practice’s computer system. Dr B never saw Baby H or his mother again.

Baby H’s mother later said her son had a “clicky” hip, which she mentioned to a health visitor prior to the baby check and to Dr B. Dr B recalled no such remarks.

Thereafter, Baby H was seen by the health visitors at various intervals and noted to be doing well. He also had two consultations for vomiting and regurgitation, and one for a viral wheeze. No other issues except these health problems were raised at these reviews.

At age nine months, the health visitor noticed Child H was not weight bearing. She referred him to his GP, who noted asymmetrical hip creases and that his right leg was shorter than the left. The GP arranged an urgent paediatric orthopaedic referral. Shortly after, Child H was diagnosed with developmental dysplasia of the right hip (DDH).

Child H had surgery at the age of ten months including a right hip arthrogram, adductor tendon release and positioning in a hip spica. After three months the spica was removed and Child H was in a brace for 12 weeks.

He started to walk at age two and a half years. His only limitations were being unable to run well and some hip discomfort when active. Later review showed Child H to be progressing well towards his milestones albeit slightly slower compared to his peers. Radiologically, his hip appeared good.


Child H’s mother alleged that Dr B failed to undertake a hip examination at the baby check. If Dr B had done so, he would have identified Child H had hip instability, and urgently referred him to hospital where DDH would have been confirmed and then managed with a Pavlik harness. Instead, Child H suffered a seven-month delayed diagnosis, pain, delayed milestones, the need for more intensive treatment and possibly a poor prognosis.

Mrs H’s GP expert advised that there was no evidence of a hip examination by Dr B. If the hips were examined this was not documented; also, if the hips were examined it was inadequate as the hip instability was not identified. No comment was made about Mrs H’s reference to a “clicky” hip.

How Medical Protection assisted

A letter of response denying breach was rejected by Mrs H’s solicitors. Proceedings were served. Medical Protection sought expert opinion on breach and causation.
Medical Protection’s GP expert differed from the claimant’s expert, saying:

• Although the baby check was not fully documented, it was not possible to infer that Baby H’s hips were not examined

• The consultation was 15 minutes: enough time to undertake the baby check

• Dr B’s comments demonstrated he knew how to undertake the baby check, especially hip examination, and when to act on abnormal findings like a “clicky” hip

• If the court accepted Dr B had examined Baby H, this would have been done in line with normal practice

• Ortolani and Barlow tests have a high specificity but a low sensitivity,1 so it was not possible to state that Dr B did not perform them properly because these tests are not effective in diagnosing DDH2,3.

Both parties’ causation experts acknowledged:

• The delay had led to more intense treatment – surgery, spica cast and brace – instead of a Pavlik harness, but the prognosis was optimistic given Child H’s good outcome so far. There was a small risk of later surgery but otherwise his hip could last to his 60s or 70s before needing replacement, much in line with the general population

• If the court accepted Mrs H’s evidence of a “clicky” hip prior to the baby check, then on the balance of probabilities, a reasonably competent hip examination by Dr B would have identified a hip abnormality

• If the court rejected her evidence, then on the balance of probabilities, a reasonably competent hip examination by Dr B would not have identified a hip abnormality.

Witness statement: Baby H’s mother 

• Both of her son’s hips were “clicky”, especially the right
• She had mentioned this to the health visitor and Dr B
• Baby H was on her lap during the baby check and his hips were not examined
• The entire appointment was no more than ten minutes
• She saw Dr B again when Baby H was four months old and again mentioned a “clicky” hip plus mobility issues, but nothing further was done
• Her son was in pain and crying constantly during his early months of life.

Witness statement: Dr B

• He definitely did the baby check on Baby H including a hip examination involving Ortolani and Barlow tests
• Unfortunately he had not completed the relevant template, but possibly because he had been distracted by the mother’s concerns about her son’s strawberry naevus
• The mother did not have the red book (PCHR) nor did she drop it off later for him to complete
• If he had found anything unusual, he would have referred, having undertaken many hundreds of similar checks in the past
• He had no recall of the mother saying her son had “clicky” hips and would have explored this further if she had mentioned it
• There was no evidence of the mother reporting similar concerns to the health visitors, with whom Dr B had a close working relationship
• He did not see Baby H when he was four months old – this was a completely different GP.

Counsel for Medical Protection also highlighted several factors that questioned Mrs H’s version:

• The objective computer system timings did not accord with Mrs H’s reported consultation length
• It was inconceivable that 15 minutes had simply been spent on a strawberry naevus
• If Dr B was able to document the naevus – a benign issue – then it was unlikely he would have failed to record a genuine concern like a “clicky” hip if sincerely mentioned at the baby check
• The alleged constant crying for the first few months of life was largely inconsistent with the medical records
• The alleged second consultation with Dr B was prima facie implausible, as failing to act on Mrs H’s alleged concerns would have been a gross dereliction of a GP’s duty of care. The actual GP who saw Child H at this time did not record any “clicky” hips • Despite Mrs H’s concerns, she did not mention “clicky” hips at any subsequent GP or health visitor consultations. Even at nine months, Child H’s presentation was one of not weight-bearing as opposed to “clicky” hips• Witness statements from Child H’s father and grandmother did not corroborate mother’s reference to “clicky” hips.


This was seen as a case to defend. The claim proceeded to trial where it was dismissed against the member after two days. Dr B held up well under cross-examination during a remote trial, due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The judge preferred Dr B’s account – to the effect that he had performed the baby check including a hip examination in line with his usual practice – over that of the claimant whose evidence was found to lack credibility.

This was on the basis that there was:

• no corroborative evidence from the medical records by any other healthcare professionals regarding her alleged reports of “clicky” hips,
• no corroborative witness evidence from family members despite the mother allegedly reporting the same to them,
• no corroborative evidence in the records of the alleged second consultation with Dr B.

Counsel for Medical Protection argued the mother’s recollection of the events was based on “false memory”, constructed with hindsight. The judge accepted this.

£30,000 was saved on claimant damages and £85,000 on claimant solicitor’s costs. Defence costs were awarded, subject to court approval. 

Learning points

• Hip examination occurs as part of the NHS newborn and infant physical examination programme. It aims to detect DDH, a significant public health issue, representing the single largest cause of total hip arthroplasty in young adults3. Examination involves the Ortolani and Barlow tests at birth and at six to eight weeks, but these are not particularly sensitive4.

• Judicial commentary5 has affirmed that failure to detect the possible presence of DDH does not automatically constitute a breach of duty in its own right.

• Good, contemporaneous clinical records are the most optimal way of defending a claim. In the absence of this, a robust statement about one’s usual clinical practice can greatly assist. Medical Protection provides guidance and support in the drafting of witness statements. However, a witness statement is not a panacea. A judge sympathetic to the claimant, a credible claimant and corroborative evidence from them can quash even the best of witness statements. The importance of a decent clinical record cannot be overstated.

• Forensic analysis of witness statements of both parties can uncover versions of events that do not stand up to scrutiny.

• In the rare event that a claim goes to court, Medical Protection is able to provide members with the support they need to face the witness box, as well as help to prepare and present themselves well so their testimony can stand up to critical observation.



1Sewell MD, Rosendahl K, Eastwood DM. Developmental Dysplasia of the Hip, BMJ 2009; 339:b4454.

2Godward S, Dezateux C, on behalf of the MRC Working Party on Congenital Dislocation of the Hip. Surgery for congenital dislocation of the hip in the UK as a measure of outcome of screening, Lancet 1998; 351(9110):1149-52.

3Broadhurst C, Rhodes AML, Harper P, Perry DC, Clarke NMP, Aarvold A. What is the incidence of late detection of developmental dysplasia of the hip in England? Bone Joint J. 2019; 101-B:281-287.

4Davies R, Talbot C, Paton R. Evaluation of primary care 6- to 8-week hip check for diagnosis of developmental dysplasia of the hip: a 15-year observational cohort study, Br J Gen Pract. 2020; 70 (693):e230-e235.

5Dainton v Powell [2011] EWHC 219 (QB). Bailli [Online]. Available at: (Accessed: 7 April 2021).




Share this article

New site feature tour

Introducing an improved
online experience

You'll notice a few things have changed on our website. After asking our members what they want in an online platform, we've made it easier to access our membership benefits and created a more personalised user experience.

Why not take our quick 60-second tour? We'll show you how it all works and it should only take a minute.

Take the tour Continue to site

Medicolegal advice
0800 561 9090
Membership information
0800 561 9000

Key contact details

Should you need to contact us, our phone numbers are always visible.

Personalise your search

We'll save your profession in the "I am a..." dropdown filter for next time.

Tour completed

Now you've seen all of the updated features, it's time for you to try them out.

Continue to site
Take again