The death of 77-year-old Arthur Brooke Craig following surgery at the Royal Sussex County Hospital in Brighton underpins the inherent importance of independent expert evidence in a coroner’s investigation. It also illustrates how an expert’s apparently clinical observations can become central to questions of causation, standard of care, informed consent and the availability of alternative treatment.
Mr Craig, a grandfather of 12, died on 26 June 2024, following intestinal surgery performed at the Royal Sussex County Hospital. An inquest at West Sussex, Brighton and Hove Coroner’s Court heard evidence concerning the decision to operate, the adequacy of the pre-operative assessment, the disclosure of treatment alternatives, Mr Craig’s urgent underlying cardiac condition and his post-operative fluid management. At the centre of the evidence was Professor Stephen Brown, an expert witness and surgeon. His evidence was particularly significant because it placed Mr Craig’s cardiac condition within the clinical context of the proposed and subsequently performed surgery.
Professor Brown told the inquest that the left side of Mr Craig’s heart had only approximately 30% functionality. He described this as a “significant compromise of cardiac function”. Vitally, the information was contained within Mr Craig’s medical records, although it was not appreciated by the clinicians treating him.
The omission was not merely a technical documentation issue. It went directly to the question of whether Mr Craig’s operative risk had been properly assessed. A patient with materially impaired cardiac function undergoing important abdominal surgery presents a very different clinical risk profile from an otherwise comparable patient without significant cardiac impairment. The expert evidence therefore provided the factual and medical foundation upon which the coroner could assess whether the decision-making process had been adequate.
The circumstances in which the information was overlooked were also examined. Dr Stephen Drage, who was chief of surgery and critical care at the hospital at the time, explained that the electronic records system displayed information chronologically. Older information could effectively “fall off the bottom of the screen”. Doctors, he accepted, should have scrolled down, but the relevant history was not immediately visible. The explanation did little to reassure the coroner. Gareth Jones described it as “absolutely appalling” that something as fundamental as previous heart surgery was not immediately available to the clinicians responsible for the patient’s care.
Professor Brown’s Concerns
Professor Brown’s second significant contribution concerned post-operative fluid management. He told the inquest that he found it “deeply concerning” that Mr Craig received no intravenous fluids for approximately 24 hours after his operation. This evidence assumed particular importance when considered alongside the hospital’s own subsequent audit. Drage told the coroner that an audit found only 60% of patients were receiving the required hourly fluid monitoring. A further 30% were being checked every four hours, while approximately 10% had no electronic fluid-chart recording.
For an expert witness, this is an important distinction. Professor Brown was not determining whether the hospital was legally negligent. His function was to assist the coroner by applying relevant clinical knowledge and professional standards to the facts established by the evidence. The ultimate evaluative and legal conclusions belonged to the coroner.
Jones subsequently described the failure to provide intravenous fluids for 24 hours as a “gross failure”, although he stopped short of finding that it amounted to neglect. The distinction is important. An expert’s criticism of clinical management does not, by itself, establish a legal finding of neglect or negligence. The tribunal of fact must determine how that evidence fits within the applicable legal framework and whether the necessary causal connection has been established.
The inquiry also examined the fundamental issue of treatment choice. Mr. Craig had initially been reluctant to undergo surgery. The evidence indicated that his family had worries about his condition and that alternative approaches were not properly explained. During surgery, the treatment proceeded in a manner that resulted in major bowel surgery.
The Coroner’s Findings
The coroner found that a second opinion should have been sought and that a less invasive option should have been explored. In particular, neither Mr. Craig nor his family was offered a de-functioning stoma. Jones concluded that, had that option been offered and accepted, Mr. Craig would have been “more likely” to survive. This finding illustrates another important function of expert evidence. An expert does not simply answer the question, “Was the treatment technically competent?” The more sophisticated medico-legal inquiry may require consideration of whether reasonable alternatives existed, whether those alternatives carried materially different risks and whether the patient was reasonably informed before making a decision.
The inquiry therefore raises issues extending beyond surgical technique. It engages the principles of informed consent, risk assessment, continuity of medical records, peri-operative management and causation. However, for Mr Craig’s family, the proceedings had a deeply personal significance. His daughter, Professor Cathy Craig, said after the inquest that her father’s “dying wish was to find out what happened to him in that hospital”. She said the family had raised a series of grave concerns and that the coroner’s findings had confirmed many of them.
The case has consequences beyond the individual death. University Hospitals Sussex said it would respond to the coroner’s findings as a matter of urgency and stated that improvements to patient care had already been introduced. The coroner also required the Trust to provide evidence that its consent procedures had been improved, with the possibility of a Prevention of Future Deaths Report if the response was considered inadequate. There is an even wider regulatory backdrop. Sussex Police are investigating more than 200 potentially preventable deaths and injuries involving University Hospitals Sussex NHS Foundation Trust, examining cases concerning neurosurgery and general surgery between 2015 and 2021. The Trust has said it is cooperating with that investigation.
Importance Of The Expert Witness
The Craig inquest, thus, demonstrates the continuing importance of properly instructed and genuinely independent expert witnesses. Professor Brown’s evidence did not itself determine the outcome. Rather, it supplied clinical analysis that enabled the coroner to scrutinise the patient’s cardiac risk, the failure of post-operative fluid management and the consequences of the treatment decisions made on his behalf.
For lawyers instructing medical experts, the lesson is evident: an effective expert witness does more than identify a departure from accepted practice. The most valuable evidence explains why the departure mattered, what reasonable alternatives existed, how those alternatives affected the patient’s prospects, and where the boundaries lie between clinical opinion, factual inference and legal conclusion.
In the Craig case, Professor Brown’s evidence helped highlight those boundaries. The coroner then made the findings. Together, they demonstrate how expert evidence can transform an inquest from an examination of what happened into a rigorous analysis of why it happened, whether it was avoidable, and what must change to prevent another death.
By Edward Price
- Expert Witnesses in the category of ‘Surgery’
- Expert Witnesses join the directory
