Pryers

Pryers Solicitors Investigate Further Failed Hip Replacements

Pryers Solicitors, one of the country’s leading specialists in cases concerning failed hip replacements, are now investigating compensation claims against Stryker, the manufacturer of the ABG II modular neck stem and DePuy, the manufacturer of the Pinnacle metal on metal hip components.

Stryker ABG II


For decades, the typical femoral stem has been a one-piece device with a tapered junction designed to fit matching femoral heads.   Problems with the release of metal debris from this junction have been well documented.

However, Stryker launched the ABG II stem in 2009 which had two separate components, one for the neck and one for the stem.  Surgeons could choose from a range of different neck lengths and stem sizes. This flexibility enabled surgeons to fit patients with more anatomically correct hip replacements yet introduced a further risk of the release of metal debris and the potential for failure with the second taper junction.

The ABG II stem was recalled from the market after only three years following safety concerns and Pryers Solicitors now act for a number of patients who have suffered the premature failure of their hip device.

DePuy Pinnacle

As well as bringing claims in relation to the DePuy ASR prostheses, Pryers Solicitors are investigating claims in relation to the Pinnacle device.

Whilst the DePuy ASR has the highest failure rate out of all of the metal hip replacement used in the UK, the DePuy Pinnacle also has performed very poorly.  The failure rate is almost 20 per cent at nine years whereas many older designs have nine-year failure rates of two per cent or less.

The Pinnacle metal system has been withdrawn from sale and claims are now being brought against the manufacturer.

Time Limits

Under the Consumer Protection Act 1987, there are two separate time limits which apply to both the Stryker ABG II and DePuy Pinnacle claims.  Firstly, cases must be started within three years of the date on which the patient first suspected they had suffered injury due to a defective medical product.  The case must also be started within ten years of the supply of the product by the manufacturer to the hospital, regardless of when the patient received it or when it failed.  If the claim is not started within this time limit, then the case will be out of time.

If you have been fitted with a Stryker ABG II stem or with a DePuy Pinnacle prosthesis, whether it is failing or not, please feel free to contact us.

hips@pryers.co.uk

0800 316 0166

Time Limits for DePuy Pinnacle and ASR Hip Claims

Pryers Solicitors of York currently act for over 500 patients who have suffered the early failure of metal-on-metal hip replacements, including the DePuy Pinnacle and ASR systems.

 

Claims for compensation are being brought against DePuy International Limited.  In the vast majority of cases, there will be no criticism of the surgeon who fitted the hip and the claims are only against the manufacturer.

 

Metal-on-metal hip replacements have all performed quite poorly, certainly worse than expected and worse than the older products they were intended to outlast.  Not only have they failed earlier, but the way in which they have failed has been particularly damaging.

In many cases, the metal head and cup simply wear out prematurely, shedding metal debris into the surrounding muscle and bone, causing damage and death of those tissues.  Metal debris is also released into the patient’s blood.  As a result, many patients have had to undergo surgery for the removal of the hip device, which often results in permanent disability and the need for yet more surgery.

Of all the metal hip replacements used in the UK, the DePuy ASR has had the highest failure rate of all.  According to the National Joint Registry, 36.4% of resurfacings had failed by 9 years and 43% of the total hip replacements had failed by 8 years.  The DePuy Pinnacle metal system has also performed very poorly, with a failure rate of almost 20% at 9 years. In contrast, many older designs have 9 year failure rates of 2% or less.  Most hip surgeons would expect a well-designed hip replacement to last at least 25 years.  Many of these DePuy devices have lasted less than 5 years.

Both the ASR and Pinnacle metal systems have been withdrawn from sale.

Time limits

Claims are being brought against the manufacturer under the Consumer Protection Act 1987.  Under this law, there are two separate time limits.  Firstly, cases must be started within three years of the date on which the patient first suspected that they had suffered injury due to a defective medical product.  However, the case must also be started within 10 years of the supply of the product by the manufacturer to the hospital, regardless of when the patient received it or when it failed.

If the claim is not started within this time limit, then the case will be out of time.

Therefore, if you have been fitted with a DePuy metal-on-metal hip device, whether it is failing or not, we urge you to contact Pryers Solicitors as soon as possible.  By taking some simple steps, we can ensure that your case is protected from the expiry of this time limit, even if you do not yet wish to bring a claim.

Most of Pryers’ clients’ claims are funded by conditional fee agreements (“no win no fee”), under which no legal costs are payable if the claim is unsuccessful.  Legal costs are only payable if the case is successful and, in that situation, the majority of the costs are paid by the defendant.

Please contact Pryers by email at hips@pryers.co.uk; by telephone on 0800 316 0166; or through our website www.pryers.co.uk.

 

Dental Negligence Victims

A Nottingham Dentist has been suspended from practising for 18 months by the General Dental Council (GDC) in August 2014 following allegations that he “put patients at risk by breaching safety standards at his Nottingham surgery”. Covert filming appeared to show that the Dentist failed to wash his hands and sterilise equipment between appointments and allegedly showed “multiple failures in cross-infection control standards”.

The Care Quality Commission inspected the practice in July 2014 and in its report highlighted concerns regarding the rooms used by the practice for storing equipment and staff allegedly not identifying the risks of items coming into contact with bodily fluids and taking no action to minimise the risks.

Health Officials have now launched a public appeal to trace every patient who has been treated by the Dentist during his 32-years of practice and asking former patients to undergo blood tests. This is believed to be one of the biggest patient recalls in British history and there is now concern that breaches of safety standards at the Dentist’s former clinic could span several decades.

Only about 3,500 of an estimated 22,000 patients have so far attended for blood tests and it is reported that only the 166 patients who were involved in the covert filming have been written to directly. This news will clearly create extra worry and on-going uncertainty to former patients.

All dentists are expected to provide clinically satisfactory treatment and to act with reasonable skill and care when doing so. If the dentist fails to do something or does something that they shouldn’t then they can be considered to be negligent.

Any former patients who are concerned and would wish to discuss their concerns further can speak to Robyn Hawxby or Barnaby Rosenthall at Pryers Solicitors on 0800 316 0166 or email dental@pryers.co.uk for an initial free advice on any legal redress by way of investigation, support or compensation that might be available.

Pryers are a leading national firm of Dental and Medical Negligence Lawyers and have extensive experience of cases involving negligent dental treatment. Our dedicated team of lawyers and experts are well equipped to investigate and advise on all issues of dental and medical treatment.

Zimmer metal hip replacements

A combination of hip replacement components used in Chelmsford has performed particularly badly, with a high rate of failure. 

Pryers Solicitors are bringing compensation claims against the manufacturer.

Over the last few years, we have become one of the country’s leading specialists in cases concerning defective hip replacement devices, currently acting for over 500 patients who have suffered early failure of different types of artificial hip joint.

 Problems with metal-on-metal hips have been reported extensively in the media over the last few years, but there is a particular combination of components, used in Chelmsford, which we believe have had an even higher failure rate than this underperforming class of devices.

This combination is the Zimmer Metasul LDH head with the Zimmer CPT stem.

The way in which these devices fail is quite different from other metal hip replacements and the outcomes after revision surgery tends to be even worse.

In these cases, the stem, which is the piece of metal that is placed inside the bone, tends to corrode, releasing metal particles which then damage the surrounding bone and soft tissues. In some cases, the thigh bone can even fracture.

 

Time limits

Very strict time limits apply to cases of this type so if you believe that you have received these components, and have experienced or are experiencing early failure of the joint, please get in touch.

If you do not know which device you have received, please call us and we will be happy to find out for you.

hips@pryers.co.uk

0800 316 0166

Deadline Approaches for Metal-on-Metal Hip Claims

Pryers Solicitors currently act for a large group of Cheltenham patients who have suffered the early failure of metal-on-metal total hip replacement devices.

Metal-on-metal hip replacements have all performed quite poorly, certainly worse than expected and worse than the older products they were intended to outlast.  Not only have they failed earlier, but the way in which they have failed has been particularly damaging.

In many cases, the junction between the metal head and the stem suffers from excessive wear.  In other cases, the metal stem corrodes.  Both processes lead to the release of metal debris into the surrounding muscle and bone causing damage and death of those tissues.  Metal debris is also released into the patient’s blood.  As a result, many patients have had to undergo surgery for the removal of the hip device, which often results in permanent disability and the need for yet more surgery.

The Cheltenham hip

A particular hip replacement device used in Cheltenham has a failure rate many times higher than the national average.  This is because it consists of components from different companies, used together, known as a “mismatched hip”.  This combination was never tested or approved by the manufacturers.

Time limits

Claims are being brought against the producer under the Consumer Protection Act 1987.  Under this law, there are two separate time limits.  Firstly, cases must be started within three years of the date on which the patient first suspected that they had suffered injury due to a defective medical product.  However, the case must also be started within 10 years of the supply of the product, regardless of when the patient received it or when it failed.

If the claim is not started within this time limit, then the case will be out of time.

The Cheltenham hips were first used in 2004 and so a few will be already out of time.

Therefore, if you have been fitted with a metal-on-metal hip replacement in Cheltenham and it has failed or is failing, we urge you to contact Pryers solicitors as soon as possible.  By taking some simple steps, we can ensure that your case is protected from the expiry of this time limit.

Please call whether you know you have received a mismatched hip or not.  We can easily find out for you.

 

Time running out for ankle replacement compensation

The AES ankle replacement was used extensively in Leeds.   Unfortunately, it had a high failure rate and was withdrawn by the manufacturer.  Pryers Solicitors are bringing claims for compensation against the manufacturer.

The AES (ankle evolutive system) was made by a French company, Transystème, and distributed by Biomet, one of the world’s largest orthopaedic companies.  After some initially good reports, surgeons throughout Europe began raising concerns about the device.

The problem

Their concern was that the device gave rise to a much higher than expected rate of osteolysis, which is a process by which the bone around the device becomes soft and disintegrates, leading to the development of large holes or cysts.  The components then become loose, requiring surgery to remove the metalwork, fill the holes and fuse the ankle, leaving it very stiff and often shorter than the other side.  In the most severe cases, the bone can collapse suddenly, causing enormous damage.

Recall

Use of the device in the UK stopped in 2008 but those patients with the AES were not informed of the concerns.  In July 2012, the UK medical product regulator, the MHRA, issued a warning to all hospitals in England and Wales, telling them of the risk posed by the AES and advising them to recall all their AES patients.  Since then, all patients should have been reviewed regularly to ensure that, if further treatment is required, it is offered as early as possible.  This is particularly important as the bone damage often causes no symptoms until a very late stage.

Pryers’ investigations

Pryers Solicitors of York act for a group of patients who have suffered the early failure of the AES and have been investigating the device for more than two years.  Pryers have evidence from some of the world’s leading experts in ankle surgery and are now confident of establishing that the AES is defective and that the manufacturer should have discovered the problems at a much earlier stage.

Time limits

In legal cases concerning defective products, a claim must be registered with the court within 10 years of the date on which the device was supplied by the manufacturing company.  In many cases, this is more than a year before it is supplied to the patient.  The claim must also be registered within three years of the date on which the patient first suspected that the device had failed.

Unfortunately, some AES claims are already out of time, but others will be very close to their time limit.  Therefore, if you have received an AES ankle replacement and might wish to take legal action at some point in the future, we urge you to contact Pryers Solicitors as soon as possible to ensure your position is protected.

If you have suffered problems with an AES ankle replacement, please contact Richard Starkie or a member of his team on 0800 316 0166 or by email at ankles@pryers.co.uk.

 

Pryers 3 Peaks Challenge

A team of 22 Pryers staff, family and friends are setting off on the Yorkshire 3 Peak Challenge on Saturday 16th August  to raise funds to buy urgently needed equipment for Lucy who is known to one of our Partners. Here is a little background info for you:

Lucy’s Story

Lucy suffered a severe stroke when she was only 20 years old. She was left with hemiplegia and brain damage. She is severely restricted by her disability and lack of mobility, which has had a huge impact on her family, not least her 7 year old daughter.

Lucy is no longer able to work as a beauty therapist as planned. She is trapped in her unsuitable home with stairs that are unsafe for her to use. She is supported by her family and friends, but cannot afford to purchase equipment, mobility aids, or additional therapies or support to improve her level of function or quality of life.

Pryers Solicitors wish to fundraise for Lucy, to buy for her much needed equipment. We would like to raise money to purchase a bespoke stairlift and/or a mobility scooter, both of which would directly improve her safety in her home and her ability to mobilise.

In order to do so, a team at Pryers are taking on the Yorkshire 3 Peaks Challenge to  raise money for this purpose. The challenge is no mean feat, and the team have been in training in order to complete it!

Pryers have acted for many victims of strokes, and are sympathetic to the debilitating effect this can have on the individuals and their family. Having worked closely with stroke sufferers, we are acutely aware of the benefit
of specific aids or equipment, such as we are
hoping to buy for Lucy.

Please see our facebook page Pryers Solicitors LLP or our twitter feed PryersMarieB for updates on the team’s progress and training.

Any generous sponsorship and support for this worthy cause is very much appreciated!

You can donate quickly and easily using our fundraising page here:

https://fundrazr.com/campaigns/bp5q2

Daughter inspired to become a lawyer after mum’s clinical negligence fight

Kendyl Moore with her mum Nicola Richardson

 

A daughter who became a carer for her mum after a medical procedure went horribly wrong is now helping others fight for their rights as she sets out to train as a clinical-negligence lawyer.

Kendyl Moore, 22, has been caring for her mum Nicola Richardson, 49, since she was left with irreversible damage in her neck, arm and hand when a doctor damaged a nerve while giving her an injection for back pain in 2003.

She was so inspired by her mum’s successful fight for compensation that she decided that she wanted to become a clinical-negligence solicitor and went to university to study law.

Kendyl, who carried out her studies at the University of Huddersfield while still caring for her mother at home in Oldham, graduated with a first-class honours degree.

She went on to complete her Master of Law and Practice qualification and has now secured a legal training contract with Pearsons Solicitors in Ashton-under-Lyne.

Kendyl, from Shaw, said: “What happened to my mum has affected her in so many ways. It has changed her life completely. It certainly made my mind up to go into practicing clinical negligence.

“What happened has helped me to understand how such traumatic life changing incidents affect people emotionally too. I know mum is really proud that I chose to stick with it.”

Kendyl’s mother has permanent problems down the right side of her arm and neck since the needle hit a nerve during the procedure more than a decade ago.

Her solicitors reached an out of court settlement in 2008. Kendyl originally wanted to join the police but changed her career choice after experiencing her mum’s compensation battle.

She has now achieved her goal despite spending nearly 20 hours a week caring for her mother and holding down a part-time job.

While studying for her degree, she was regularly awake at 3am to speak by phone to her boyfriend, Daniel, who was serving as a soldier in Afghanistan.

Kendyl now hopes to use her degree to help others fight medical-negligence claims.

Kendyl’s mum Nicola Richardson said: “I’m extremely proud of Kendyl. She had an awful lot going on while she was studying. She’s just a very focused girl and nothing was going to stop her.

“She was determined that, after what happened to me, she wanted to go into clinical negligence to help other people.”

(http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/daughter-inspired-become-lawyer-after-7588504)

Possible legal action over Thomas Smith’s meningitis death

Thomas Smith

 

“It is clear that the paediatric team at the Prince Charles Hospital were not working effectively to ensure treatment was commenced as early as possible.”
- Statement from Thomas Smith’s family

The family of a schoolboy who died from meningitis say they are considering legal action against the hospital, which delayed giving him antibiotics.

Thomas Smith, from Hednesford, was on holiday when he was admitted to Prince Charles Hospital, in Merthyr Tydfil, with six meningitis symptoms.

An inquest found the hospital made “gross failures” when doctors failed to start him on antibiotics for more than four hours.

He died on his 13th birthday last year.

Thomas’s parents Andrew and Emma Smith said their son had been “let down” by doctors at the hospital.

A statement issued through their solicitor Lawyer Zak Golombeck said: “The coroner found that there were numerous gross failures in the care afforded to Thomas.

“As such the coroner has decided to write a report to the chief coroner and the health board to ensure that future deaths do not occur in these circumstances.

Hospital criticised

“It is clear that the paediatric team at the Prince Charles Hospital were not working effectively to ensure treatment was commenced as early as possible.

“In essence, they let Thomas down.”

Mr Golombeck said he was advising the family with regard to legal action.

Coroner Christopher Woolley criticised the hospital for failing the schoolboy in their duty of care and ordered a report to prevent similar deaths taking place at Prince Charles Hospital.

Thomas, of Hednesford, near Birmingham, was referred to the hospital by an out-of-hours GP when he fell ill in May 2013.

He was seen by Dr Kwong-Tou Yip and consultant paediatrician Dr Ezzat Afifi who both gave him paracetamol.

Four hours later he was diagnosed with pneumococcal meningitis and was eventually given antibiotics.

He later fell into a coma and was transferred to the University Hospital of Wales in Cardiff but never recovered.

On Tuesday, chief executive of Cwm Taf University Health Board, Allison Williams, said the health board would consider the coroner’s findings and continue to implement the changes required to address any failings in service.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-east-wales-28129368

NHS blunders led to Devon toddler’s death

Sam Morrish

A string of blunders by NHS workers led to the death of a three-year-old Devon boy, a review has found.

Sam Morrish died in December 2010 from a treatable condition because four health service organisations made mistakes, the Parliamentary Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) said.

He died of severe sepsis after a “catalogue of errors”.

Sam’s parents also said they had “serious concerns about the competence and accountability” of the ombudsman.

Ombudsman Dame Julie Mellor said that had Sam received the appropriate care, he would still be alive today.

Cricketfield GP Surgery, NHS Direct, Devon Doctors Ltd and South Devon NHS Trust were all criticised.

Failures included inadequate assessment of the toddler, not recognising that he was vomiting blood and a three-hour delay before he received antibiotics at hospital.

‘Factual errors’

His family said as well as losing their son, they feel they have been “failed” by the NHS complaints system.

In a statement released through the Patients Association, they also criticised the ombudsman.

“The astonishing length of time it has taken for PHSO to finalise this report has inescapably prolonged our distress.

“Although we are grateful that the PHSO has upheld our complaints… we are left with serious concerns about the competence, capability and accountability of the PHSO itself.”

Sam’s mother Susannah Morrish said: “The report looks the way it does because of our constant intervention.

“The fact there had to be two draft reports, both of which looked radically different to this final report, says something.

“Our involvement included providing information, pointing out omissions, correcting factual errors.

“Our thoughts were if we didn’t do this, who would?”

Sam’s father Scott Morrish said: “The thing that we’re still trying to push for is, we’re not clear who the ombudsman is accountable to, we’re not clear who really understands what happens behind the scenes there, and we’re not entirely sure that Parliament is actually able to look at anything more than what comes out in the report.”

Dame Julie said: “I accept that the family are right that the investigation method used in this case was not adequate to the complexity of the case.

“I really recognise that this contributed to the family’s distress and we have apologised for that and thanked the family for their feedback on the particular method we used in this case, because we are developing new investigation methods.”

Dame Julie said that Sam’s devastated family suffered “further injustice” because health officials failed to properly investigate the youngster’s death.

“But this case has to be looked at in the context of taking on over 4,000 cases to investigate every year, and receiving very few complaints about the quality of our decision making.

“When we do, we treat it like gold dust to help us improve our service.

“We’ve published this case so that the wider NHS learns from Sam’s death,” she added.

NHS England was ordered to pay £20,000 to the family.

Mr Morrish said: “The irony is we never wanted to lodge a formal complaint.

“We only did because we were advised to by the Patients Association in response to the NHS completely getting it wrong, not once, but twice.

“We didn’t want it to be about blame, we wanted it to result in good learning.”

(http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-28029149)