Medical Negligence

AS v Dr MD

Our medical negligence solicitors were instructed to bring a compensation claim for AS, who works as a classroom assistant in a school for children with special needs. She developed arthritis in her trapezium bone in the wrist. Her doctor recommended that this should be removed, however the operation was negligently performed, leaving the great majority of the trapezium behind. The operation was performed privately.

AS had to undergo a second operation to remove the trapezium, which was performed by another doctor, again on a private basis. Unfortunately, although this operation was properly performed she developed a neuroma, causing her chronic neuralgic pain. This was a known complication of surgery, which would not have occurred, but for the second operation.
As a result of the medical negligence, AS is now hampered in many day to day tasks. She has had to reduce her hours at work, despite her employers making adjustments for her disability. She needs help with housework and she cannot enjoy her previous hobbies.

The medical negligence claim was for general damages for her injury, loss of earnings, pension loss, aids and equipment (including an automatic car with power steering) and care. It also included a subrogated claim for her medical expenses, which she had to pay as a result of the medical negligence, including physiotherapy.

The matter settled before issue of court proceedings, for £70,000.00.

Birth Injury and Cerebral Palsy

A was a young boy of 3 years old who suffered permanent brain damage due to medical negligence during an anaesthetic provided during dental surgery where he had gone to have several milk teeth removed. He was given a general anaesthetic during which he suffered a lack of oxygen, causing brain damage. Our medical negligence solicitors obtained £1.5 million in compensation for him, which enabled A, his brother and single mum to move to their own house and for A to have a carer when he needed one. The medical negligence compensation included money for his loss of earnings as he was never going to be able to work.

This medical negligence compensation claim also resulted in health regulations being changed so that children's anaesthetics can never again be given in a dental clinic. Children now have to go to hospital where there can be proper supervision of the anaesthetic process.

A

Birth Injury and Cerebral Palsy

As a result of medical negligence B suffered brain damage during birth due to oxygen starvation resulting in Cerebral Palsy. He suffered asymmetrical spastic quadriplegia, developmental delay, learning difficulties and associated mental and physical handicaps complicated by epilepsy. Liability was denied throughout the claim. Our medical negligence solicitors settled the case for £1,050,000.

B

Birth Injury and Cerebral Palsy

This medical negligence claim involved the birth of twin girls. One sadly died at birth, and the other was born with Cerebral Palsy due to the negligent handling of the mother's birth. The medical negligence compensation claim settled for £3 million, which will help provide for the child's care and accommodation needs and compensate for her loss of earnings. It will greatly improve the family's quality of life and indeed on hearing the settlement, S's mother said "8 years ago our lives were taken away and today you've given them back".

S

Care of the Elderly Mr P v A Private Nursing Home

Mr P went to a private nursing home after being discharged from hospital, where he had been treated for a chest infection. His wife went with him. Like many elderly people, he had lots of health problems: diabetes, chest and heart problems. He also came out of hospital with a small pressure sore.

Unfortunately, the nursing care provided by the home was poor and amounted to medical negligence. The monitoring of Mr P's diabetes was poor. He developed a second pressure sore and was not given enough pain relief. When Mr P's chest got worse there were delays in providing him with oxygen (which the nursing home knew he needed) and in getting the GP out to see him.

Sadly, Mr P died. On the morning after his death the nursing home cleared his room (which was still being paid for), bundling his clean and dirty clothes together in black bin bags, and left them in his widow's room. On top of the pile was Mr P's used urine bottle. His widow was devastated.

The family had already asked the then National Care Standards Commission to investigate their complaint. Armed with their report we wrote a strong letter setting out the basis of their medical negligence claim, and made an immediate offer to settle. After negotiations Mrs P accepted compensation of £14,000.00 together with a whole-hearted letter of apology from the home.

It was important for the family to receive an apology and to feel that they had done what they could to prevent this happening to anyone else. This isn't something we can always achieve, but if it is important to you as part of a compensation claim, do let our medical negligence solicitors know.

Mr P

General Surgery

The Claimant was advised to undergo a facelift which was wholly inappropriate in his circumstances and was contrary to advice of a psychiatrist. Additionally he did not provide informed consent prior to procedure. As a result of this medical negligence the Claimant required two further operations and suffered significant facial scarring and psychiatric problems. His medical negligence compensation claim settled for £35,000.

D

Gynaecology and Obstetrics

The Claimant suffered an extensive perineal tear during birth of first child. As a result of medical negligence, the full extent of tear was undiagnosed and untreated. As a result Claimant suffered severe incontinence, pain, embarrassment, cosmetic disfigurement and sexual dysfunction. She suffered from pre-existing psychiatric illness and was unable to tell anyone about her problems. The extent of the damage went undiagnosed until the birth of her third child in 1993, despite the birth of her second child in 1990. Liability was denied throughout the claim by her GP and the hospital where she had her first child. The medical negligence compensation claim settled for £30,000.

C

Gynaecology and Obstetrics

This medical negligence claim concerned Miss T who was a young mother who needed a hysterectomy because she was suffering from heavy periods.

She agreed to this but particularly asked for her cervix to be left behind, because she had been told (wrongly) that the cervix is important for sexual function.

When she had the operation her surgeon did not check the consent form and took out her cervix as well. She was sent home but unfortunately had a serious complication, life-threatening bleeding. This bleeding was from a vessel that would not have been touched if her cervix had been left behind.

Miss T was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder because the bleeding had been so frightening. Our medical negligence solicitors assisted her to bring a compensation claim, and her settlement allowed her to get the counselling she needed to treat this.

Miss T

Gynaecology and Obstetrics

Mrs S was a young mother who suffered a peri-anal tear as a result of medical negligence during the birth of her second child. The incontinence she suffered subsequently did not end until her repair surgery had been completed. This meant that she was unable to return to work, and she suffered deep rooted psychosexual problems which affected her marriage. The compensation claim was settled for £17,000.00 within 8 months of our medical negligence solicitors being instructed.

Mrs S

HIV Test False positive

The Claimant underwent an HIV test and was informed that she was HIV positive. For 10 years she was monitored by doctors. On transfer to another doctor she was advised to undergo a further HIV test. The Claimant was re-tested and found to be HIV negative. She suffered trauma and distress for 10 years living with the belief that she was HIV positive. Additionally she failed to reach her true potential in her career due to psychiatric problems, as a result of believing that she was HIV positive. Her medical negligence claim was settled for £100,000.

S

K v Chelsea & Westminster Healthcare NHS Trust

The deceased had a chest x-ray which showed a mass in her chest. This was misdiagnosed as a pulmonary embolism and no further investigations were carried out. As a result, the unusual and aggressive form of lung cancer that the deceased (a lifelong non-smoker) was suffering from was diagnosed too late for her to receive any palliative care.

The deceased deteriorated rapidly and died less than two months after giving birth to her second child, at 23 years old. Her son was one year old at the time of her death. She died without knowing what was wrong with her. A medical negligence claim was brought on behalf of the family against the NHS Trust. It was strongly defended but a global settlement of the medical negligence compensation claim was reached in the sum of £22,500.

One of the main issues in this case was that the cancer had shortened the deceased’s life expectancy, which would have been the case even if she had been correctly diagnosed at an earlier time. The medical negligence was shown to have decreased her life expectancy by up to 12 months.

Mills v West Hertfordshire NHS Trust

The Claimant fell from a height and hurt his foot. He attended Accident & Emergency and was given an appointment to return and be seen at the fracture clinic three weeks later. He was treated for an isolated fracture of the third metatarsal and subsequently discharged. He sought a second opinion after his pain failed to subside. A correct diagnosis was then made and he was found to have a severe Lisfranc injury to his right foot. He had to undergo surgery.

Had there been no medical negligence resulting in a delay in diagnosis, the Claimant would not have had to undergo complex surgery. As a result of the delay the Claimant has to use orthotics in his shoes every day and cannot stand for long periods of time, run recreationally or play football.

The total agreed medical negligence compensation was £35,000.

Misdiagnosis and inappropriate drugs - E

The Claimant stopped taking Warfarin, blood thinning medication. in preparation for a heart valve operation on the advice of doctors. The operation was cancelled but the Warfarin was not re-prescribed. As a result of this medical negligence the Claimant suffered a major stroke and was left with impaired mobility, difficulty swallowing and incontinence. The Claimant found the loss of independence extremely distressing and frustrating. The Claimant's life has been significantly foreshortened. The medical negligence claim settled for a lump sum of £105,000 plus additional annual payments of £40,000 to provide for private care for the duration of the Claimant's life.

E

Misdiagnosis and inappropriate drugs - W

Claimant was a child who underwent dental treatment with the use of a general anaesthetic. The child subsequently suffered a cardiorespiratory arrest and subsequent brain damage, as a result of a failure to adequately monitor the child during the recovery stage. As a result of the case the President of the Professional Conduct Committee of General Dental Council has said "this case has raised fundamental issues in terms of the relative responsibilities of the professionally qualified staff involved in giving general anaesthesia in dentistry. The council will be reviewing its guidance in the light of this case''. The new guidelines were subsequently produced and circulated in November 1998. Claimant suffers from persisting neurological disabilities affecting his cognitive functioning, his speech and language abilities and fine motor functions. He also suffers from nocturnal ensuresis. The defendants have admitted liability and the case is currently under negotiation of quantum.

W

Misdiagnosis and inappropriate drugs T

The Claimant was diagnosed with Behcets Disease in 1982. As a result he was prescribed a cytotoxic drug as treatment. The diagnosis of Behcets disease was not reviewed despite the Claimant failing to present with symptoms confirming the diagnosis. His medication was not properly monitored by the hospital nor his GP for 13 years and as a result he developed cancer and tragically died. The medical negligence claim was brought by his widow. Our medical negligence solicitors settled the case for £150,000

T

Pressure sores due to medical negligence

Mr. B developed a pressure sore whilst in hospital undergoing an operation for an ode node carcinoma of the colon. The pressure sore would not heal partly because Mr. B was diabetic and partly because it had become so deep during his hospital admission due to medical negligence. This resulted in a below the knee amputation of his right leg. He therefore had to undergo the amputation, rehabilitation and had a prosthetic leg. His medical negligence claim settled for £100,000.00 which reflected two years' loss of earnings and his out of pocket expenses, care costs and prosthetic replacements. He was 68 at the time of the claim.

Pressure sores due to medical negligence - Mrs C

Our medical negligence solicitors acted for Mrs C, aged 80 who developed pressure sores on her heels and sacrum whilst having respite care in a nursing home. She was also diabetic. The pressure sores deteriorated so that she needed an above knee amputation of one leg and a colostomy. Her medical negligence claim settled for £300,000.00.

Mrs C

Pressure Sores due to Medical Negligence

This medical negligence claim was for Mrs G who was admitted to hospital for surgery to remove a tumour of the bowel. This was a keyhole procedure necessitating a three day stay in hospital. Mrs G was 79 years old, had Type 2 diabetes and was overweight. She was therefore at increased risk of developing pressure sores.

Before the operation she was told that she would be participating in a pain management project. She was told that she would receive an epidural to manage post-operation discomfort. She was not offered an alternative and was not informed of any risks regarding epidural injections.

After the operation, Mrs G was placed back on the ward, immobilised by the effects of the epidural and intravenous drips. When the epidural wore off she complained of feeling sore. A nurse examined her and dismissed the sore as something of little concern. Mrs G continued to complain of pain and when this became severe it was discovered that she had developed pressure sores on her sacrum and on one of her heels. These were raw, weeping and infected.

Shortly before she was discharged from hospital Mrs G was put on a pressure relieving mattress but by then the pressure sores had become established and she was complaining of sweats and pain.

She was discharged home to the care of the district nurses. The district nurses felt unable to care properly for her at home and she was admitted to a care home. She was re-admitted to hospital two days later and underwent a debridement procedure. At this time her pressure sores were noted to be grade 3 pressure sores. She was treated with vacuum dressings and was discharged home to the care of district nurses.

The Claimant alleged that the pre-operative decision to administer an epidural was medically inappropriate in the circumstances and that the decision to administer an epidural to a patient at increased risk of developing pressures sores was inappropriate in any event. The Claimant had not been appropriately advised as to the possible risks, implications, and complications of administering epidural in her particular case and she was not given the opportunity to consider the merits of proceeding in that way.

Mrs G has made a full recovery from her pressure sores, although she is now vulnerable to pressure sores in the future. The medical negligence claim settled 15 months after we were instructed for £17,500.00.

Mrs G

S v Barking, Havering & Redbridge NHS Trust

Out of Court Settlement

The Claimant was, at the time of the incident in the middle of taking her A level exams. She was predicted to get very high grades and had a place to read French and Business Administration at King's College in London.

At around midnight, the Claimant awoke from her sleep, shaking uncontrollably, feeling extremely hot, sweating profusely and with a fever.

The Claimant was given paracetamol by her mother but her condition did not improve and she continued to shake uncontrollably and to sweat profusely. Her mother then took her to the A & E Department arriving in the early hours of the morning. She was seen by a doctor, who after a brief examination, diagnosed exam stress. He discharged her with no further advice.

The Claimant's mother took the Claimant home but, on arrival back at the house, the Claimant was vomiting profusely. Her mother took her back to bed but was so concerned about her daughter that she sat in the doorway of her bedroom on a chair all night. The Claimant's condition got markedly worse overnight until, in the early hours of the morning, her mother thought she looked almost dead. She had been vomiting in the early hours but this had gradually stopped, she was pale, cold and lifeless.

As soon as the GP Surgery opened, the Claimant's mother telephoned her GP. Unfortunately, no GP was able to come out until later that day so the Claimant's mother tried to get her into the car but the Claimant was immobile and unable to stand. At this point, the Claimant's mother telephoned for an ambulance and the Claimant was taken back to the A & E Department. She was seen by a doctor who diagnosed a bacterial infection and admitted the Claimant.

Unfortunately, the Claimant's condition was not further reviewed at the hospital until several hours later, when she was diagnosed as seriously ill with signs of meningitis.

The Claimant was immediately admitted to ITU and treated with intravenous antibiotics. The Claimant survived but developed disseminated intra vascular coagulation with severe ischaemic changes in her right hand and in both feet. Her right hand and both feet became gangrenous and were eventually amputated.

In addition to this, the Claimant underwent multiple skin graft operations, and suffered from scarring where the grafts were taken. She spent a prolonged period in hospital undergoing strenuous physiotherapy and rehabilitation and was eventually discharged home. Her father took six months off from work in order to help the Claimant's mother look after her as, at that point, the Claimant required 24 hour care.

After a great deal of negotiating, fundraising and donations, the Claimant was able to obtain prostheses from the Dorset Orthopaedic Clinic. These enabled her to resume some of the activities she had enjoyed prior to the meningitis, namely swimming and walking.

After deferring her place at King's College for one year, the Claimant did try to undertake the course at the college but it was not really suitable for someone with her level of disability. Therefore, she reapplied and gained a place at Queen Mary's College at the University of London which has better facilities for someone who is wheelchair bound for much of the time.
The Claimant is able to walk for approximately 50 yards after which she needs a wheelchair. She is able to manage most of the activities of daily living with some assistance. She anticipates one day living independently of her parents and hopefully attaining employment although the prospects are very much reduced.

The Claimant's parents instructed our medical negligence solicitors with a view to bringing a claim for medical negligence and obtaining compensation for their daughter.

The medical negligence claim settled for £850,000.00.

S

Smith v Luton & Dunstable Hospital NHS Trust

The Claimant was working as a Nurse for the National Blood Transfusion Service when she began to experience sciatic pain in her left leg. She was referred to and was seen by an Orthopaedic Surgeon, at Luton & Dunstable Hospital. He recommended a discectomy. He expressly represented to the Claimant that this was an uncomplicated procedure and, indeed, did not warn of the risks. The discectomy took place. In the course of the operation, a dural tear occurred and the surgeon applied gel foam to pack and to seal the tear.

Post operative observations were recorded as being normal but, shortly after returning to the Ward, the Claimant complained to the nursing staff of pain in the lower left limb and numbness in the left foot. During the night the Claimant suffered urinary incontinence but was unaware that this had happened until she felt the wet bed beneath her.

The Claimant was seen by the Orthopaedic Consultant, and informed him of the episode of bed wetting and the feeling of numbness and loss of sensation in her backside and her bladder. The doctor was reassured by the examination he carried out and the Claimant was discharged home.

Shortly after her discharge, she began to experience an increasing loss of sensation extending to the peri-anal area, together with the difficulty passing urine. She telephoned the hospital to report this. She was told by the hospital that she should contact her GP. She contacted the out of hours service, and they attended the Claimant the same evening and advised that the Claimant's condition would resolve over the next two weeks and that she should contact her own GP if her condition worsened or failed to resolve.

Concerned but, at the same time reassured, the Claimant continued at home with an increasing loss of sensation over the next couple of days until a District Nurse attended her and suggested that she return immediately to the hospital for a check up.

The Claimant then attended the A & E Department at the Luton & Dunstable Hospital where, following examination, they found that she was probably suffering from Cauda Equina Syndrome. An urgent transfer was arranged to the Royal Free Hospital where the Claimant could undergo an MRI scan and further surgery to relieve the spinal compression.
Sadly, following the medical negligence, the Claimant was left with substantial loss of sensation in the peri-anal area, loss of sexual function and double incontinence as well as reduced mobility. She was never able to return to her work as a part-time Nurse for the Blood Transfusion Service, a job which she had greatly enjoyed.

The Claimant's medical negligence claim was that there was a lack of informed consent because no risks were discussed with the Claimant and that, even though the surgery itself was not performed negligently, the aftercare was negligent in that there had been a failure to detect and act upon the Cauda Equina Syndrome.

The medical negligence claim settled for £500,000.00.

Spinal Injury

This medical negligence claim involved a lady who underwent a successful discectomy but went on to develop an infection of the spine called discitis. This was not diagnosed and treated until she had suffered irreversible damage to her spine. The medical negligence claim settled for £300,000 which was compensation for pain, loss of quality of life and loss of earnings and expenses.

Dr G

Spinal Injury

Mrs S was 44 at the time she underwent a discectomy at her local hospital for back and leg pain. She suffered compression of the nerves afterwards due to bleeding and the formation of a blood clot in the spinal column which was not diagnosed. This resulted in partial paralysis from the waist down, incontinence of urine and faeces. Her medical negligence case settled for £500,000.00 which was for loss of earnings, compensation for pain and suffering and loss of quality of life and care claim.

Mrs S

Stillbirth G

We acted on behalf of a woman whose baby died before he was born. Sadly there was not appropriate monitoring by the Trust the night before our client was due to give birth by caesarean section. We obtained an apology from the Trust for the medical negligence.

An offer of settlement was accepted by our client one month after she first contacted us. Regrettably we will never be able to 'turn back the clock' for our client though the compensation and the apology have helped her come to terms with her grief.

G

Stillbirth P

Defendant hospital was unable to locate vital medical records which would prove that the hospital was negligent in allowing a perfectly healthy baby to die in 30 minutes before birth. Nevertheless case settled for £21,000.

P

W v Barking, Havering & Redbridge NHS Trust

The Claimant was employed as an architectural technician. He was diagnosed as suffering from renal stones. The Claimant experienced abdominal pain and a feeling of tightness when urinating.

He was admitted for a ureteroscopy at King George's Hospital where his consultant was unable to reach the stones. A stent was inserted with the hope of opening up the passage to allow the stones to be passed naturally. The Claimant was told that the stent would be removed after a month and that he would receive a letter asking him to come back to the hospital.

The Claimant did not pass the stones and did not receive a letter from the hospital asking him to come back in. The Claimant began to experience back pain and consulted his GP. He also called the hospital to arrange an appointment but was told to ring back after Christmas as the clinic was all booked up.

He was finally set an appointment for two months later. The Claimant commented on the fact that the stent had been in for longer than a month and asked why this had happened. He was told that there had been problems getting him into the hospital as there was a long waiting list.

The Claimant had a ureteroscopy and was told that the stent had been stilted up and encrusted. The old stent was removed and a new one inserted.

The Claimant began to experience pain when bending over, when waiting to urinate, when standing and when walking. The pain became sharper on urination.

After a long delay before an appointment, the stent was again removed and a further one inserted. The Claimant was told that the stent took a long time to take out as it was encrusted again.

The Claimant did not pass the stones and eventually they were removed by ureteroscopy. The stent could not be removed as it was so encrusted. The Claimant was therefore advised that he would have to come in for Extra Corporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy to remove the stent. This was carried out and he was told that he would have to come back two weeks later to have the stent removed.

The stent could not be removed and the Claimant had to undergo a procedure to remove the stent which involved opening up his kidney.

The Claimant suffered from incontinence, blood in his urine and constant pain in his lower back.

The Claimant had to give up his hobbies which included squash, gardening and taking children on charity trips due to the pain that he was experiencing. He gained approximately three stone as he was unable to remain active throughout his ordeal.

The Claimant was made redundant during his ordeal. His urinary problems meant that he was self conscious about working for an employer and was forced to become self-employed until the stent was removed and his urinary problems resolved.

The Claimant has now made a full recovery and has resumed his work.

The medical negligence claim settled for £35,000.

W