Chester vs. St. George's - I'm Entitled to Compensation on Conventional but or Causation

In crossmen against saint george's there was a nerve root injury following surgery. It was accepted that the risks hav been appropriately explained. But surgeon's plan had been for conservative treatment for three months, then review the patient to surgery. Instead she actually just had surgery without that pause. The claimant said, well, without that negligence, i wouldn't have had the operation on the day i did. So i'm entitled to compensation, either on conventional but or causation, or through chester. He therefore said, i didn't need to go near chester.