Caroline
Klage
"The "supportive" Caroline Klage really gets things humming, and protects you from the worst aspects of the claims process. She heads the team and impresses with her grasp of the medical issues at the centre of negligence claims."
Chambers Directory 2010
Caroline heads up the clinical negligence team at Bolt Burdon Kemp and specialises in clinical negligence and personal injury. She has a particular interest in cases involving brain injury and has been instrumental in successfully concluding a number of high value cases. Caroline relishes a challenge and has successfully concluded a number of cases rejected by other firms on the grounds that they had poor prospects of success. Caroline champions a pro-active and practical approach to running clinical negligence and personal injury cases which ensures that cases are progressed swiftly and without delay with clients receiving the maximum amount of compensation possible.
Career
Caroline trained at Prettys solicitors in Ipswich and joined Bolt Burdon Kemp shortly after qualifying in September 2001. She was made a Partner in August 2006.
Memberships
Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL)
Education
Lancaster University - European Legal Studies with German (LLB). Winner of the FH Lawson Prize for the best graduating student on her course and the Cavendish Prize for the best final year dissertation in law.
Nottingham University - Masters degree in European Law (LLM), graduating with distinction.
College of Law, London – Legal Practice Course, merit.
Personal
Caroline is happily married with two children and lives in Barnet, Herts.
Outside work, Caroline enjoys family life, camping, socialising and choral music.
Recent cases
Recent successes include –
• A claim where a patient underwent what was described as left L3/4 and L4/5 decompression surgery to his lumbar spine, but it was the Claimant's case that an inadequate decompression of the L4 nerve root was carried out, that the L4 nerve root was damaged in the process and also that there was a failure to decompress the L5 nerve root. Consequently, the Claimant suffered debilitating pain, weakness in the left knee and left ankle necessitating the use of a full leg brace, sensory symptoms in the left lateral calf and the dorsum of the foot and wasting of the muscles in the left thigh.
• A claim where the patient underwent a laparoscopic cholecystectomy which was converted to an open cholecystectomy but was not given antibiotic prophylaxis, even though a CT scan taken prior to surgery identified the presence of gas forming organisms in the gut. As a consequence of the failure to give antibiotic prophlaxis, the patient developed a wound infection and an incisional hernia. He also suffered depression.
• A claim where the patient presented to an Accident and Emergency department following an accident on his scooter. He was unable to move his right shoulder and his left wrist was hurting. X-rays were taken of the patient's shoulder but not of his wrist as the nurse advised there was not much swelling. Some months later, the patient discovered that he had fractured his scaphoid bone and that this had tried to heal itself and failed. The patient had to undergo open reduction and internal fixation with bone grafting of the left scaphoid non-union.
• A claim where the patient was profoundly asphyxiated at birth and suffered ischaemic brain damage, with severe dystonic/spastic quadriplegic cerebral palsy. It was submitted that the there was a delay in delivering the patient following the onset of fetal distress.
Reported Cases
A v Smith (2003)
Caroline represented the Claimant in this case who was a young boy who had experienced head injuries of the utmost severity. He had been riding his bicycle, when the Defendant, travelling at speeds of up to 30mph collided with him. The accident occurred in a 30mph zone. This was a landmark case. Even though the Defendant was travelling within the speed limit, the judge held that she was negligent. The speed limit was the maximum limit at which motorists should travel and the Defendant should have moderated her speed to take into account other factors, such as the fact that she was in a built up area with lots of parked cars on either side of the road and visibility, due to parked cars on the road and at junctions was poor. Also, she had a duty to take into account the presence of vulnerable road users, such as children and cyclists and adjust her speed accordingly.
Back to Our Team