Medical Negligence

AS v Dr MD

AS is a classroom assistant in a school for children with special needs. She developed arthritis in her trapezium bone in the wrist. Dr MD 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.

She 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 of gardening, sewing and letter writing.

The claim was for general damages, 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 including physiotherapy.

The matter settled before issue of proceedings, for £70,000.00. Of that, approximately £10,000.00 was for AS' pain and suffering.

Birth Injury and Cerebral Palsy

A was a young boy of 3 who suffered permanent brain damage due to a lack of care during an anaesthetic at his dental surgery where he had gone to have several milk teeth removed. He was given a general anaesthetic during which sadly he suffered a lack of oxygen which is what caused the brain damage. We obtained £1.5 million for A which enabled him, his brother and single mum to move to their own house and for A to have a carer when he needed one and to compensate him for his loss of earnings as he was never going to be able to work.

This case also resulted in Regulations being changed so that children's anaesthetics can never again be given in a dental surgery. Children have to go to hospital where there can be proper supervision of the anaesthetic process.

A

Birth Injury and Cerebral Palsy

Claimant suffered brain damage during birth due to oxygen starvation resulting in Cerebral Palsy comprising asymmetrical spaxtic quadriplegia, developmental delay, learning difficulties and associated mental and physical handicaps complicated by epilepsy. Liability was denied throughout. Case settled for £1,050,000.

B

Birth Injury and Cerebral Palsy

This is a case involving the birth of twin girls. One sadly died and the other was born with Cerebral Palsy due to the negligent handling of the mother's birth. The case settled for £3 million pounds which will help provide for the child's care and accommodation needs and 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 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, Mr P 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. The monitoring of Mr P's diabetes was bad. 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 National Care Standards Commission (now the Commission for Social Care Improvement) to investigate their complaint. Armed with their report we wrote a strong letter and made an immediate offer to settle. After negotiations Mrs P accepted a settlement of £14,000.00 together with a whole-hearted letter of apology from the home.

It was important for the family to get 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, do let your solicitor know.

Mr P

General Surgery

Claimant was advised to undergo a facelift which was wholly inappropriate in the Claimant's circumstances and contrary to advice of a psychiatrist. Additionally the Claimant did not provide informed consent prior to procedure. As a result the Claimant required 2 additional operations and suffered significant facial scarring and psychiatric problems. Case settled for £35,000.

D

Gynaecology and Obstetrics

Claimant suffered extensive perineal tear during birth of first child. Full extent of tear undiagnosed and unprepared. As a result Claimant suffered severe incontinence, pain, embarrassment, cosmetic disfigurement and sexual disfunction. Claimant suffered from pre-existing psychiatric problems and was unable to tell anyone about her problems. Extent of damage went undiagnosed until birth of third child in 1993, despite birth of second child in 1990. Liability by GP and first hospital denied throughout. Case settled for £30,000.

C

Gynaecology and Obstetrics

Miss T 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 as it turns out) 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. 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 during the birth of her second child. The fetal incontinence she suffered subsequently did not end until her repair surgery had been completed which meant that she was unable to return to work and she suffered deep rooted psychosexual problems which affected her marriage. Fortunately, the case was settled without any litigation within 8 months of us being instructed for £17,000.00.

Mrs S

HIV Test False positive

Claimant underwent 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. Claimant was re-tested and found to be HIV negative. Claimant 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. Case settled for £100,000.

S

K v Chelsea & Westminster Healthcare NHS Trust

This is an unusual case with particularly tragic circumstances.

The deceased had an irregular 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 and without being able to say goodbye to her children. A claim was brought on behalf of the family against the NHS Trust. It was fiercely defended but a global settlement was eventually reached in the sum of £22,500 plus legal costs.

One of the main issues in this case was that the cancer had shortened the deceased’s life expectancy, even if she had been correctly diagnosed at an earlier time. The negligence served to decrease the time she had left with her loved ones by up to 12 months. It was difficult

Misdiagnosis and inappropriate drugs - E

Claimant stopped taking 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 the Claimant suffered a major stroke and was left with impaired mobility, difficult swallowing and incontinence. The Claimant found the loss of independence extremely distressing and frustrating. The Claimant's life has been significantly foreshortened as a direct result of CVA. Case 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

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 never 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 claim was brought by his widow. Case settled £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. 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 case 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.

This case settled without any litigation following an investigation, including obtaining the medical records and an independent expert opinion.

Pressure sores due to medical negligence - Mrs C

Mrs C aged 80 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 settlement of £300,000.00 has allowed her loving family to care for her in a way she deserve

Mrs C

Pressure Sores due to Medical Negligence

Mrs G was admitted to hospital in January 2008 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 some 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 presented as 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 at the end of January 2008. 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 at the end of February 2008. She was house bound for all of March and half of April. The last time that she was visited by a district nurse was in the middle of May 2008.

The claimant alleged that the pre-operative decision to administer epidural (by random lot in accordance with the Study method comparison criteria) was medically inappropriate in the circumstances and that the decision to administer epidural to a patient at increased risk of developing pressures sores was wholly 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. The Hospital was unable to produce evidence it had sought and obtained approval for the Study from the Hospital Trust Ethical Committee. It was also alleged that the anesthetist responsible for monitoring her progress in the period after the surgery failed to give appropriate instructions to the surgical team and nursing staff to ensure their increased vigilance with respect to the (likely) risk of her going on to develop pressure sores in the absence of intervening care.

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

Mrs G

S v Barking, Havering & Redbridge NHS Trust

Out of Court Settlement

This case concerns allegedly negligent treatment by the medical staff at King George Hospital , Ilford.

The Claimant (DOB: 29.07.82) 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 on the night of 22nd/23rd May 2000, 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 of the King George Hospital arriving at 01.09 hours on 23 rd May 2000 . She was seen by an SHO, Dr. Bhandwaj 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 the 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 which arrived at 09.30 hours. The ambulance arrived at 09.30 and the Claimant was taken back to the A & E Department at King George Hospital . She was seen by a doctor at 10.30 hours. This doctor recorded a bacterial infection and referred the Claimant to the Hospital's Physicians for admission.

Unfortunately, the Claimant's condition was not further reviewed at the hospital until 14.00 hours when she was eventually seen by a Senior Medical House Officer who concluded that she was seriously ill with signs of meningitis.

The Claimant was immediately admitted to ITU and treated with intravenous broad spectrum antibiotics. Notwithstanding this, her condition deteriorated and it was anticipated that she would not survived.

The Claimant did survive but developed disseminated intra vascular coagulation (DIC) 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 operations, namely skin grafts and suffered the resultant body scarring from where the grafts were taken. She spent a prolong period in hospital undergoing strenuous physiotherapy and rehabilitation and was eventually discharged home in August 2000. Her father took 6 months leave from work in order to help the Claimant's mother look after her so that she could return home as, at that point, the Claimant required more or less 24 hour care.

In the intervening years, the Claimant made a miraculous recovery. 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. She is studying Business Administration and French and is predicted to attain a First Class Honours Degree.

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 given that she is a triple amputee and would rank on a scale of disability as very severely disabled. Her minimal voice compounds problems facing her in relation to future employment.

The Claimant's parents originally instructed Rosamund Rhodes-Kemp with a view to securing compensation for their daughter's ordeal. At the time, she was in the middle of a very difficult rehabilitation programme and they were still coming to terms with the fact that she could have died. More recently, however, the Claimant herself has voiced her own feelings about the claim and her main objective was to secure funding to pay for ongoing prostheses from the Dorset Orthopaedic Clinic which would enable her to restart more of the activities that she enjoyed prior to the meningitis, namely horse riding, skiing and scuba diving.

It has to be said that the bravery, fortitude, beauty and intelligence of the Claimant made an impact on everyone who met her throughout the case.

Instructions were received in August 2000 and the first Funding Certificate was granted on 7 th September 2000 . Thereafter, an investigation was carried out into liability and causation.

An expert in A & E medicine, a Specialist in Infectious Diseases and a Microbiologist were all instructed. Their reports were obtained.

Dr. Roger Evans - A & E Expert - was supportive of the claim on liability.

Dr. Martin Wood (Deceased) on Infectious Diseases was supportive on causation.

Professor Susie Eykyn, Consultant Microbiologist was equivocal and felt the timing was very tight.

A conference was arranged and the experts at which, following Professor Eykyn's input, Dr. Evans changed his opinion and said he could no longer support the case. Dr. Wood remained supportive but was concerned that the timings for causation were tight.

Counsel was concerned about the continued funding of the case unless Dr. Evans could be persuaded to reconsider his view.

Faced with this situation, Dr. Evans was asked if he would reconsider but was not happy to do so.

Therefore, a further liability expert was instructed, namely an A & E Specialist from Nottingham . She turned the case down but had discussed causation with a colleague, Dr. Martin Culshaw. Dr. Culshaw was so appalled at the sequence of events that he said he would prepare a positive report on liability and deal with causation which he did.

Sadly, meanwhile, Dr. Martin Wood, died so the entirety of the Claimant's evidence on liability and causation was focused on Dr. Martin Culshaw.

One further expert on liability and causation was instructed on behalf of the Claimant, namely Dr. Graham Westmore, Consultant ENT Surgeon, who dealt with her loss of voice.

After this marathon investigation which had not been without its ups and downs, proceedings were issued on 13th May 2003 and Particulars of Claim were served on 8th September 2003 . A Defence was received on 15th December 2003 and the first Case Management Conference took place on 9th February 2004 with the second Case Management Conference taking place on 1 st July 2004.

The Trial was listed for 18 April 2005.

Tragedy amongst the experts struck again but, this time, on the Defendant's side and they asked for an extension of time to consider the Part 36 offer because their expert on causation, Dr Thurston had suffered a stroke and it was unclear as to whether he would be able to continue in his role as expert on the case, report on documentation and give evidence at Trial. Fortunately, that expert made a recovery sufficient to go on advising on the case because, otherwise, it would have necessitated a complete revisiting of all of the documentation including the Defence, expert reports, meetings of experts and witness statements.

Quantum experts were instructed with perhaps the key experts being accommodation, care and prosthetics. Further problems with the experts were encountered with the prosthetic expert who flatly refused to endorse any of the prosthetics provided by Dorset Orthopaedic or the costs thereof. Therefore, a further prosthetic report had to be obtained - this time from a Specialist at Dorset Orthopaedic to confirm the reasonable expectations of the Claimant to have prosthetics which enabled her to regain some of the function that she had lost through the alleged negligence.

Armed with these reports, a Schedule was prepared and served with documentation in support.

This was served and the Defendant's Counter Schedule and supporting documentation followed a few weeks later.

The Defendants made an offer of £100,000 on 9 th March 2005 .

The Claimant made a Part 36 offer in excess of £2 million.

Rather strangely, in the run up to Trial, the only offer ever made by the Defendants was £100,000 (until the settlement meeting) and it was not on a Part 36 basis and would not put the Claimant at risk as to costs.

Very belatedly, the Defendants agreed to a settlement meeting but, unfortunately, the Claimant's Counsel was away on holiday as it was, by now, the Easter vacation.

The first opportunity for a settlement meeting was 13 th April 2005.

Both sides evaluated the litigation risks which, for the Claimant, were considerable given the history of the medical evidence and the difficulties that had been experienced throughout the course of the investigation.

Nonetheless, the Defendants also faced risks especially as they had not made a Part 36 offer in the run up to Trial.

After much discussion, the Defendants offered £850,000.00 which was accepted by the Claimant who had not wanted to go to Trial, very aware of the risks, was glad that the matter was finished and could look forward to investing her award to enable her to purchase the prosthetics that she so desperately needs from Dorset Orthopaedic Clinic and which, with further investment, could provide for her long term care needs.

The Claimant was represented by Mr. Derek Holwill of Hailsham Chambers and Rosamund Rhodes-Kemp of Bolt Burdon Kemp.

The Defendants were represented by Counsel - Fiona Neal, 3 Serjeants Inn and Miriam Farley, Solicitor for the Trust, Messrs. Kennedys.

S

Smith v Luton & Dunstable Hospital NHS Trust

In early 2000, the Claimant, then working as a Nurse for the National Blood Transfusion Service, began to experience sciatic pain in her left leg. She was accordingly referred to and was seen by a Mr. Pandit, an Orthopaedic Surgeon, at the Luton & Dunstable Hospital . Mr. Pandit recommended a discectomy of the L5/S1 disc. He expressly represented to the Claimant that this was an uncomplicated procedure and, indeed, did not warn of the risks. The discectomy took place on 2 nd October 2001 and was performed by Mr. Pandit. In the course of the operation, dural tear occurred and Mr. Pandit elected to deal with this by applying 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 experienced and complained to the nursing staff of pain in the lower left limb and numbness in the left foot. During the night of 2 nd October 2001/3 rd October 2001, 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 Mr. Pandit on the morning of 3 rd October 2001 . She informed him of the episode of bed wetting and the feeling of numbness and loss of sensation in her backside and her bladder. Mr. Pandit 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 was concerned enough by these developments to call the hospital and report them. She was told by the hospital that she should contact her GP. She contacted the Deputising Service and informed them of the history, her present symptoms and her concerns. A Doctor from the Deputising Service duly 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 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 5 th October 2001 when a District Nurse attended her and suggested that she return immediately to the hospital for a check up.

The Claimant therefore attended the A & E Department at the Luton & Dunstable Hospital where, following examination, it was recorded 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 surgery at the Royal Free, 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 and very fulfilling having undertaken various extra courses such as Health & Safety and being the Union Representative.

Perhaps more significantly as far as the Claimant was concerned was the impact on her relationship with her husband. She relied on him for full care in the early stages following her discharge from hospital and this involved carrying some of the most intimate aspects of hygiene which they both found extremely distressing and which seems to have permanently affected their relationship. The case raised the issues as to whether or not it is appropriate to even contemplate the spouse being the main carer because of the fundamental shift in the matrimonial relationship which then occurs which the couple being carer and cared for as opposed to husband and wife.

Evidence was obtained for the Claimant from Mr. Jeremy Fairbank, Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon and for the Defendant - Mr. Maurice-Williams. The Claimant's case was advanced on the basis that there was a lack of consent and informed consent because no risks were discussed with the Claimant and that, in any event, notwithstanding that the surgery itself was not performed negligently, that the aftercare was negligent in that there had been a failure to detect and act upon the Cauda Equina Syndrome.
The case was difficult, however, because of the inherent problems within failure to warn cases, notwithstanding the recent Health Board's decision which was actually published on the same day as the settlement meeting on this case. Moreover, the Claimant's evidence was that the Claimant would have had the pain and some mobility problems in any event. The nursing notes were also silent regarding the increase in Cauda Equina symptoms on the night of 2 nd / 3 rd October 2001 .

The Defendant's evidence was that there had been no failure to warn and that the Claimant would have had the operation anyway. There was no negligence during the surgery and any negligence after the surgery occurred too late to alter the outcome of the Cauda Equina Syndrome which in itself can cause long term difficulties even if spotted straight away.
Such were the problems with the evidence on the Claimant's case that, at one stage, Counsel felt that the case was unlikely to succeed. Fortunately, a few weeks later on 27 th February 2004 , the Defendants admitted breach of duty but denied that the negligence had caused all of the harm.

Both sides then sought to concentrate on the causation aspect and quantum.

Numerous attempts were made by the Claimant's team to settle the case without recourse to lengthy litigation because the process itself was having a detrimental effect on the Claimant and her husband.

Protective proceedings were issued on 28 th September 2004 .

The settlement meeting finally took place on 14 th October 2004 with both Counsel and solicitors in attendance. The main issues between the parties related to loss of earnings and care with the Defendants arguing that future employment was not impossible and that the Claimant required a lot less care than had been claimed but she would probably need help in accessing what was available locally.

The claim settled for £500,000.00.

This can broadly be broken down as follows:-
General Damages - £60,000.00
Past losses - £140,000.00
Future Losses - £300,000.00

Both sides agreed that with appropriate psychological support, the Claimant could be enabled to lead a much better quality of life and that the biggest limitation on her potential future was her own perception of her limitations.

In addition to a small allowance from the Defendants for psychotherapy, discussions took place with the Claimant regarding the possibility of future surgery to minimise the bowel incontinence and horrendous regime of bowel care which was the severest limit on the Claimant's life style and involved the most care for her husband.

It was accepted by the Defendants at the settlement meeting that the Claimant was unlikely to work in the future.

Spinal Injury

This 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 claim settled at a settlement meeting 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 case settled for £500,000.00 which represented loss of earnings, compensation for pain and suffering and loss of quality of life and care claim.

Again this case settled without litigation after investigation and appropriate evidence was obtained in support of the 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. They also admitted breach of duty and after obtaining an expert Obstetricians report, made an offer of settlement that 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. Our client's courage in pursuing her claim has highlighted to the Trust how they can prevent further tragedies.

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

This case concerns allegedly negligence treatment by the medical staff at King George's Hospital.

The Claimant was employed as an architectural technician. He was diagnosed as suffering from renal stones in August 2001. The Claimant experiences abdominal pain and a feeling of tightness when urinating.

In October 2002 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 in November 2002 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 14th February 2003. The Claimant commended 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.

In February 2003 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.

In April 2003 the Claimant received a letter for a clinic appointment prior to surgery in August. The surgery could not take place because there were no available beds. The Claimant was finally given an appointment for October 2003.

The stent was 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 in August 2004. 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 in September 2004 and he was told that he would have to come back 2 weeks later to have the stent removed. There were no beds available and the Claimant had to wait until April 2005 before an appointment could be made.

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 3 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 as an architectural technician for a local employer.

Instructions were received in December 2004 and the case was funded by Legal Expenses Insurance. An investigation was carried out into liability and causation. The defendant did not make an admission of liability and therefore proceedings had to be issued.

An expert in Urology was instructed and was extremely critical of the treatment that the Claimant received. He concluded that there were repeated and unacceptable delays in providing effective management compounded by questionable clinical decision making and lack of adequate resources.

Departments of Urology have an obligation to maintain a record of patients with uretic stents and ensure that stents are removed or replaced before encrustation and impaction occurs. There was a breach of duty in the Trusts's failure to allow the stent to remain in-situ for periods of 4 months, 8 months, 10 months and 20 months.

The Defendants made an offer of £30,000 on 15th March 2006.

The Claimant made an offer of £40,000.

The Defendants then made an offer of £35,000 which was accepted by the Claimant who did not want to go to trial and wanted to put the matter behind him now that he was stone and stent free.

The Claimant was represented by Karen Dumolo.

W