Paralysed student sues GP who cleared her as fit to skydive
A depressed student left paralysed after breaking her neck in a university parachute jump is suing for £15m, claiming her GP should not have cleared her as fit to skydive.
Miriam Barker, now 29, was in her third year at Southampton University studying history and philosophy when a pal persuaded her to join the uni’s Skydiving Society, tackling her first jump in April 2018.
Although Ms Barker successfully ‘exited’ the plane at 3,500 feet – with her parachute opening correctly – she landed far too heavily, flipping upside down and fracturing her neck and back in the impact, rendering her tetraplegic.
The accident at Dunkeswell Airfield, in Honiton, Devon, caused a ‘catastrophic spinal cord injury’ and Ms Barker is now wheelchair-reliant due to the extensive spinal damage.
Ms Barker, who was just 21 at the time, is now suing for £15 million over the massive long-term effects of the accident, claiming compensation from jump organisers Skydive Buzz Ltd and from Dr Aneela Hafiz, a university GP who she says wrongly signed her off as medically fit to skydive.
But both the skydiving company and the doctor are denying blame and fighting the case.
Documents lodged with London’s High Court state that Ms Barker had been seeing a counsellor and was about to start a course of cognitive behavioural therapy when she decided to join the university’s skydiving society in early 2018, undertaking intensive parachute training before the projected jump on April 22.
Areas covered by the instructors included ‘an exercise where the students jumped off a chair and rolled on the ground to simulate a landing’, exiting the plane safely and activating the emergency chute.
The budding skydivers were also drilled about the need to ‘flare’ when approaching the ground, which involves pulling on the chute’s toggles to slow down the descent.
But Ms Barker’s legal team say the chair prop was inadequate for the task and that instructors should have provided a ramp to ‘simulate the sensation of forward momentum during landing’.
They say that Ms Barker’s landing was too heavy because Skydive Buzz instructors also failed to properly ‘talk her down’ by radio contact, and warn her in time about the urgent need to flare.
As a result, she ended up landing heavily and rolling forward.
‘She fell heavily onto her knees and face, her neck was compressed as her legs went up behind her,’ her barrister, John Kimbell KC, explained.
‘She remained conscious and felt an excruciating pain in her neck and back. She was unable to move her arms or legs.’
The impact of her fall had devastating consequences for Ms Barker, say her lawyers, causing ongoing pain and leaving her so crippled she can only ‘take a few steps in a Zimmer with close supervision’.
‘She is unable to work as a result of her injuries. Her ability to secure paid employment and pursue a meaningful career is severely compromised,’ explained her KC.
Ms Barker’s lawyers say Skydive Buzz was at fault in failing to provide adequate supervision and training, including in getting trainees to practise parachute rolls by jumping from a chair rather than from a specially designed ramp.
On top of that, the former student alleges that Dr Hafiz should not have signed her off as mentally fit to skydive, and that had she not done so the parachute jump would probably not have happened.
Ms Barker had a history of depression and anxiety, and had been taking medication, court documents disclosed, and as her GP, Dr Hafiz had to sign a form for the skydive organisers declaring whether or not she was ‘fit to do a solo jump’.
The GP signed her off as presenting ‘no extra risk,’ whereas Ms Barker’s lawyers say her troubling history should have prompted an ‘unacceptable risk’ description.
Her lawyers claim that her mental fragility impaired her ‘ability to concentrate and to perform effective and timely decision making in a stressful situation’.
Her psychiatric condition ‘thereby caused or contributed to the happening of the accident’, says Mr Kimbell.
‘But for the breaches of duty particularised…Dr Hafiz would not have certified the claimant as fit to jump, and would have instead certified her as being in the ‘unacceptable risk’ category,’ argued Mr Kimbell.
‘She would therefore not have jumped and would not have suffered any injury.’
Both Skydive Buzz and Dr Hafiz deny liability for the tragic accident, with the company insisting that it delivered comprehensive training, along with careful supervision on the jump day.
It defends using a chair to simulate rolling as ‘a perfectly reasonable means of teaching students the techniques necessary for safe landing’ – also insisting that trainees received full training in using their radios, and that an instructor was advising her by radio as she came in to land.
‘The talk-down instructor calmly reminded her to keep her feet and knees together in readiness for landing and to flare,’ said Skydive Buzz’s KC, Tim Horlock, in court documents.
‘That reminder and advice was provided at a height and time sufficient to have ensured a safe landing, had Ms Barker’s acted appropriately and calmly.
‘However, she landed with her legs apart and without flaring – contrary to tuition.’
As for Dr Hafiz, the GP has accepted that she should have assessed the risk level as ‘acceptable extra risk if instructor is informed’, but her lawyers point out that she signed the form two months before Ms Barker’s jump and that her patient should have disclosed her full medical history to Skydive Buzz.
In her written defence, Dr Hafiz says she was justified in passing Ms Barker as fit to jump when she signed her off, as she seemed ‘markedly improved’ and ‘stable’.
Both the GP and Skydive Buzz dispute liability and say Ms Barker was herself at fault. The company alternatively claims that any blame for the accident should be laid at Dr Hafiz’s door.
The case recently appeared in court for a hearing dealing with the evidence to be adduced at a full trial of Ms Barker’s claim at a later date.
Pulse previously reported on the impending legal action last September, when the partners first warned of up to £10m in potential vicarious liability.
Related Articles
READERS' COMMENTS [26]
Please note, only GPs are permitted to add comments to articles
We have a policy of not signing any high risk sport and activity requests for this very tragic reason and I would strongly encourage colleagues to carefully consider ever completing this sort of medical paperwork
We have a blanket no for any form that says fit for……only offer medication information from the record which is true and no opinion. Why would you even look at a form for £30??
This seems very unfair on the GP.
A tragedy for the patient. I think anyone who agrees to jump out of a plane with a rucksack full of a sheet and some bits of rope is mentally unsound anyway.
I am unaware of what criteria should be met to declare anyone fit to sky dive and wouldn’t touch this form either.
People could learn a lot from the DVLA forms. They ask for information that is available, not for an opinion, and those facts are used to make decisions
I agree with the consensus. How can you certify anyone as “fit to”? Don’t offer an opinion – stick to the facts.
She was mentally fit enough to attend an appointment, attend a course and was deemed capable of doing the static line jump on the day. Accidents can happen and this is a risk taken when you jump out of a plane at 3500 ft. She will have willingly taken that risk.
Wow. Quite aside from the claimant, The company want to throw the GP under the bus as their defence.
We are gradually turning into the USA.
This is a tragic outcome, but it is also very unfair on future potential sky-divers :
Because of this case, it will becoe impossible to get fitness certified by GP, or anyone else, for any person wishing to undertake parachute jumps who has ever had any kind of anxiety or mental health issues; or possibly anyone at all;
Additionally, certifiers will restrict access to less risky activities if they perceive there is any kind of increased risk – so, basically anything where anybody is asked to obtain medical advice or certification first;
Additionally, sky-dive schools will tighten up on restrictions, reducing access severely to a wide range of people who might want to parachute.
This in turn will reduce the number of people who are trained to jump and land safely, which could have consequences for future air disasters.
It is an absolutely nobody-can-win-at-all legal case with severe damaging effects on the industry.
Maybe sky-diving is so dangerous that it should be banned altogether. Maybe it is not.
It’s not about £30 or any money charged by the GP practice(we didn’t charge anything in similar situations), it’s about the fact that in certain situations GPs are almost pushed into a corner by patients, for example some (young) people do skydiving to raise money for noble causes and almost pressure GPs in signing particularly when there is nothing significant in their medical history.
Easy …..from now on dont sign any fit to forms.
Its not gms
I remember the Hungerford massacre in 1987 and the GP who “signed” the shotgun licence being accused etc. Following that we as partners signed nothing. Period. We had a difficult time with police over the years re shotgun licences… we were threatened by the police but held our ground. Sign nothing. And remember NHS Resolutions pay for our “errors” so make sure you have support from the defense societies. Years ago a surgical reg refused admission for a young patient who i knew had perfed…. I rang the consultant who accepted the patient. Patient still had a go at me
May I suggests that any GP who feels he/she must sign such ‘fit for/to…’ (free or for whatever fee) should consider first seeking guidance from their defence union.
Throwing yourself out of an aeroplane is self evidently a high risk activity. Anyone who chooses to do so knows this, and must take full responsibility for their own actions. They should sign a waiver before every jump to this effect.
But now we have a poor GP under huge duress panicking that her defence union may not cover this huge claim.
This will be the death of “fit for” forms if it goes through.
this will dent any dangerous but popular sports as they all ask for a fitness certificate. I had a fit young patient wanting me to say he was fit enough to do a double marathon. I knew him well and how fit he was so I was happy to sign and he came third in the international 50 mile race in France. The next year he asked for another certificate but I gathered it was for 5 marathons back to back and I baulked at that one.
I’m not sure who would have signed that but it had a very high almost suicidal risk in my opiinion. I think he achieved it, but I retired so did not see him again.
Are the claimant’s lawyers working on a no win no fee basis?
would never sign such a thing
but either way, fit to jump does not mean guaranteed survival
appears here that unless they can prove her disorder of the mind or brain affected her CAPACITY TO UNDERSTAND AND CONSENT TO THE RISKS OF PARTICIPATING then there is no case. capacity to consent to the risks of a skydive under care of the company was not GPs remit, and as we know, capacity is presumed present in law unless provably otherwise.
While Just A GP and others are correct – I’m fairly certain the GP will be fine here; the work and stress involved will be significant.
In the past claims like this would have often not resulted in the GP/ NHS litigation/ hospital demanding costs I think that should change. And costs, in full, inclding billing for all the GP time at a retail rate (£4/ minute is £40/ consultation) should always be persued as a deterrant to others.
Shouldn’t we all wait for the outcome of this case before jumping to blanket bans?
I’ve jumped from an aircraft and paraglided from a mountain, I’ve sailed across the Pacific and the Southern Ocean in a 70ft yacht and ridden though Colombia on a motorbike. All (bloody) dangerous things to do and all worth every moment to do. Most of my friends thought I had lost the plot or had a screw loose but these are the things that make some people who they are.
Vicky absolutely 💯. Even tiddlywinks has its risks conkers and football rugby and ice-skating where does it end?
https://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/news/politics/gp-promotional-campaign-focuses-on-signing-skydiving-consent-form
Pulse might want to contrast this article with todays headline, and might even consider sending the story to the relevant legal teams. This case may result in a direct change of practice and advice from the BMA for us to refuse to assess fitness for extreme sports entirely. This is consequential for society.
“Shouldn’t we all wait for the outcome of this case before jumping to blanket bans?”
There should be a self-imposed blanket ban on GPs doing this kind of work (and the £30 is laughable). Providing factual information from the record? No problem. Providing an opinion on fitness to parachute/skydive? No thanks. We’re not experts in this and shouldn’t be doing this kind of work. We’re being used as a risk sump and a cheap one at that.
Agree Mr Marvellous.
Horrible for the patient in terms of personal injury and loss of potential income, but at least in this country she has (what remains of) the NHS and social services to look after her.
Perhaps waivers for dangersports and No Fault Compensation (as used in NZ for example) might avoid the legal bloodbath.
I feel for Dr Hafiz for whom this must be extraordinarily stressful and hope she is exonerated, but even if she is I suspect the final legal judgement might still be woolly rather than clear cut with respect to fitness requests.
With respect to GANFYD there is only one clear cut way to avoid your day in court.
Don’t feed the lawyers.
Absolutely ridiculous. This boils down to her not doing what she was told to do, or not listening to the instructors in her radio earpiece.
Gps should not be involved in any of this: rather, the skydive company should provide the jumper with a medical questionnaire to fill in themselves, and a waiver to sign that they have truthfully filled it in.
This is a stinky pile of cow manure.
“Shouldn’t we all wait for the outcome of this case before jumping to blanket bans?”
Seems to me highly likely the GP will NOT be found liable. But even so, is the stress of fighting a 15 million pound lawsuit (not covered by NHS indemnity) a price worth paying for the privelege of providing this service?
Typical of uk legal teams and sadly some patients to pin the blame for there life decisions and often risky behaviour on everyone else including the easy GP target.
I feel NHS should taken off responsibility of providing for any sick note by GPs . Despite writing comments on sick note nobody take care of sick note and employers and job centres encourage people to get sick note f.