Pryers

Lawyers ‘not driving NHS negligence claims’

A recent article appearing on http://www.thetimes.co.uk (‘The Times’ newspaper) on the 6th of June 2013.

Ian Pryer

Published at 12:01AM, June 6 2013

MP Margaret Hodge’s comment reported yesterday, that lawyers are partly to blame for a dramatic increase in medical negligence claims, was rather predictable, disappointing and importantly, not true.

It’s the usual knee jerk reaction from politicians we’ve come to expect whenever figures are released that show a rise in medical negligence cases brought against the NHS. There’s actually no evidence whatsoever that medical negligence solicitors are inflating the number of claims brought.

In fact, since the government brought in no win, no fee, it makes more sense for lawyers to filter out less meritorious claims against the NHS, as unlike under the old legal aid system, there are no costs paid if the case doesn’t succeed. The real reason behind the increase is simple – lack of NHS funding. The NHS is creaking at the seams.

There’s plenty of other evidence to support this. Only today it was reported that A&E waiting times are at their worst level for nine years.

Health care professionals have become increasingly vocal in stating that budgetary cuts and goal-setting are the principal threats to improving the delivery of health care in the NHS.  As lawyers we completely agree. Reducing the resources available to the NHS will only result in lessening in standards of care and more claims.

While the level of claims has risen dramatically in the last year – some 18% according to DWP figures,  it’s worth putting the figures into context. Compensation and costs payments make up less than 1% of the annual NHS budget and the legal costs make up approximately one-sixth only of that 1%.

There’s actually a very great reluctance to pursue the NHS unless there is clearly a case of wrong doing. At our own medical negligence practice Axiclaim, only one in ten potential claimants are advised to pursue their case against the NHS.

Medical negligence specialists, in that sense are the primary gatekeepers for legitimate claims against the NHS. We’re also the last line of defence for vulnerable patients who in some cases, such as Mid-Staffs, suffered not just negligent, but criminal lack of care.

Politicians would do well to address the underlying cause of medical negligence claims, than try to pass the blame to the lawyers defending clients who have been badly let down by the health service.

Race For Life 2013

The Pryers Ladies

 

 

 

 

 

 

Team Pryers Ladies has 11 of our ladies running / jogging / walking the Race for Life this year. Some are seasoned runners, others donning their running shoes for the first time and some running (actually they are walking!) with injured ankles and legs, such is the determination of the team to raise as much as possible for the fabulous cause Cancer Research UK.

If you would like to read the team’s own words on why this is so close to their hearts, please follow this link: http://www.raceforlifesponsorme.org/pryers-ladies and while you’re there you may just be tempted to sponsor them too!!

We will report back after the race to let you know how they got on… watch this space!

Latest figures for ACCIS hips

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pryers are investigating claims against the manufacturer of the ACCIS hip resurfacing and hip replacement system.

This is a metal-on-metal (MOM) device, but has a thin coating, claimed to prevent the release of hazardous cobalt and chromium ions.  The ACCIS is used in only small numbers and, in the UK at least, only by members of the design team.  There have not been, therefore, any independent studies on its performance so far.  However, other manufacturers have tested similar coatings in the past and found that, in perfect conditions, they can reduce wear and metal debris release, but often, in less than perfect conditions, they can wear out far faster even that normal MOM hip components.  No other manufacturer uses this coating in hip replacement.

Revision rates

The manufacturer of ACCIS claims very low revision rates.  It says that none failed during their clinical trial.  It says that, of all components removed for whatever reason, none showed damage to the coating.

However, we have recently received information, from one of the UK hospitals at which these components are fitted, showing that 21.5% of hip resurfacings and 17.5% of total hip systems have been revised so far.  To put that into perspective, the DePuy ASR, which is the subject of thousands of compensation claims around the world, was taken off the market when its revision rates reached 12% and 13% for the resurfacing and total hip.

We have also seen evidence that the coating has failed.  It is believed that particles from the coating, being harder than the cobalt-chromium metal underneath, cause very rapid wear and the release of metal ions.  This process has been reported in the past by other manufacturers and researchers in relation to other similar coated MOM hips.

If you have experienced the premature failure of an ACCIS hip and would like legal advice as to your options, please call Pryers on 0800 316 0166 or email us at hips@pryers.co.uk.

ACCIS Hip Resurfacing

Pryers are acting for a number of patients who have suffered the early failure of the ACCIS hip resurfacing.  This is a novel device, used only in very small numbers in the UK, in two hospitals in Wales.  It is understood that it is only used by surgeons who are also design consultants for the manufacturer.

The device is a cobalt-chromium resurfacing, essentially similar to a Birmingham hip or a DePuy ASR.  However, it has a very thin coating of a gold-coloured material (titanium-niobium-nitride) which is thought to prevent wear of the components and the shedding of metal debris.  In some cases, it seems that this coating has failed and premature wear of the components has occurred, with patients developing very high levels of cobalt and chromium in their blood and having to undergo revision surgery.

Pryers are currently gathering evidence with a view to bringing product liability claims for compensation against the manufacturers and distributor, Implantcast Gmbh of Germany.

If you have experienced the premature failure of an ACCIS hip and would like legal advice as to your options, please call Pryers on 0800 316 0166 or email us at hips@pryers.co.uk.

Details emerge from first DePuy ASR trial in USA

In the USA, the first trial concerning the DePuy ASR hip replacement has begun.  The case has been brought by Mr Loren Kransky in the Los Angeles court.  Until now, many important internal DePuy documents have been held in secret but some are starting to come to light, as is the testimony of senior DePuy employees, and many of these have been seen by Pryers.

Pryers has been acting in the DePuy ASR cases for over two years and now represents over 300 UK patients who have suffered failure of the joint.  The high failure rate; the damage it causes; and the reasons for that failure are well known to the firm.  However, what is emerging from the US trial is how DePuy responded to reports of poor performance and safety concerns about the ASR.

Simulator tests

In June 2007, DePuy tested the ASR hip against its own Ultamet metal-on-metal hip product, also known as the Pinnacle.  The components were put in hip simulators and moved through 5 million cycles.  People are thought to put their hips through anything from 1 million to 4 million cycles per year.  Volumetric wear is simply the amount of material that has come away from the component after a given number of cycles.

Pass/Fail Acceptance Criteria

The acceptance criteria was set such that ASR should wear at a similar or lower rate than the Ultamet 36mm bearings…Total mean volumetric wear of the ASR bearing over 5M cycles was 2.52mm3 and 0.15mm3 for the Ultamet implants.  Mean bedding in wear measured from 0- 1.5M cycles for ASR and Ultamet bearings was 1.96mm3 and 0.11mm3 respectively, while steady state wear from 1.5M to 5M cycles for ASR and Ultamet bearings was 0.24mm3 and 0.02mm3 respectively…The current results for ASR do not meet the set acceptance criteria for this test…M Hadley 26 June 2007”.

Therefore, in June 2007, more than three years before ASR was withdrawn in the UK, DePuy had their own test results to tell them that ASR wore about 17 times faster than their own Pinnacle product, yet they continued to sell and market the ASR.

Concern about metal ions

In 2008, Graham Isaac, DePuy’s Director of Hip Development, based in Leeds, emailed the company’s senior executives to express his concerns.  Dr Isaac was intimately involved in the development and launch of the ASR.  Indeed he had given a presentation to surgeons at which he claimed that an ASR would take 20 years to produce as much metal debris as the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing, the market leader, would produce in the first year of use.

In his email Dr Isaac said: -

Yesterday we were given some clinical data which compares metal ion levels between BHR (Birmingham Hip Resurfacing) and ASR.  In essence this shows that under certain conditions ASR is susceptible to extreme metal ion levels, whereas in the hands of the same surgeon BHR does not have the same problems…I believe that this data will appear in the journals in 2 parts in 6 months and 12 months and has the potential to seriously affect our business.  We need to discuss this at the earliest possible opportunity as I believe it means what we need to start any ASR upgrade sooner than our previous plans had suggested.”

In his testimony, Mr Andrew Ekdahl, a marketing executive in charge of the introduction of ASR XL in the USA, said that he then consulted not with the company’s surgical or medical advisors, with their engineers, regulators or lawyers, but with the marketing department.

Incidentally, one of DePuy’s lawyers has suggested that Mr Kransky’s high levels of cobalt and chromium ions were perhaps the result of his exposure to the chemical Agent Orange during his Vietnam service.  However, it is well known that cobalt and chromium ions leave the body and return to normal over a period of 12-18 months.  Even if Agent Orange contained these metals and even if he had been exposed to it, it could not possibly account for his high levels over 40 years later.

Redesign of the cup?

Paul Berman, another senior DePuy marketing executive, expressed his view about reports of high metal ion levels in an email of 2nd May 2008: – “We will ultimately need a cup redesign but the short term action is manage perceptions

In an e-mail of July 2, 2008, Mr Berman expressed his concern about sales representatives “telling surgeons DePuy is making an emergency change to the ASR cup. We must keep the ASR 2 project under total wrap, particularly in the U.S. where we will not make the change immediately. As expected, the competition will use this information against us….Lastly, I propose any future reference to ASR 2 is Project Alpha. Please be cognizant about who you discuss this project with, particularly outside the company.”

“Project Alpha” was a plan to design the cup by eliminating a groove on the inside so as to increase the arc of coverage.  Many experts believe this would have succeeded in preventing failure due to excessive and premature wear.  However, was later cancelled as it was said that “the business case for the project could no longer be justified and it was decided to halt development of the ASR II/ ALPHA cup”.

Recall of the product

Even in autumn 2009, when it was known that the Australian Joint Registry was about to publish very unfavourable results for ASR, the company decided not to undertake a worldwide recall but to withdraw the product only in Australia.

Around this time, internal emails show that a decision was to be made as to whether the product should be withdrawn immediately; in six months; or in six months but with some “key surgeon who are big cutters” continuing to use ASR.  The DePuy analysis shows that this decision was to be made according to how many surgeons could be persuaded to move across to DePuy’s Pinnacle hip, rather than switching to another brand.  The estimated cost of withdrawing ASR was put at $15 million dollars.  To date, DePuy is said to have spent $800 million on the recall and faces litigation expected to cost the company in excess of $5 billion.

After withdrawing from the Australian market, DePuy continued to sell ASR in the UK and USA until August 2010, about a month before the publication of the annual National Joint Registry of England and Wales, which was also expected to show very poor results for ASR.

“Patient safety the top priority”

Even after the recall, even after all the reports of thousands of injured patients, Mr Ekdahl maintains that the product was withdrawn, not because he and the company were worried about patients’ safety, but for commercial reasons.  “This was purely a business decision”, Mr Ekdahl has been quoted as saying.  He has consisted rejected all claims that the ASR was withdrawn due to concerns about patient safety.

In a note sent to DePuy employees in February 2012, he said that DePuy “has made patient safety the top priority throughout the lifecycle of ASR”.

Mr Ekdahl is now president of DePuy Inc.

New service for victims of medical negligence

Ahead of concerns about access to justice for patients and their families pursuing medical negligence claims as a result of legal aid cuts coming in April and increasing competition in the legal marketplace, Pryers Solicitors has launched its Axiclaim brand.

The idea behind Axiclaim is to ensure that Pryers’ team of expert medical negligence lawyers remains preeminent in fighting for the rights of victims of medical mishaps in an increasingly competitive and (for consumers) an increasingly confusing marketplace – a marketplace where retailers, insurers and other non-lawyer claims companies now compete for clients alongside traditional law firms as a result of deregulation under the Legal Services Act 2007.

‘We believe that patients who have been unlucky enough to have been the victim of medical accidents and poor treatment, and their families, deserve specialist legal help,’ comments Ian Pryer, partner at Pryers Solicitors. ‘These are uncertain times for people looking for access to justice as a result of the legal aid cuts coming in April. Not only are ministers overhauling the funding of legal cases – scrapping legal aid for pretty much all medical negligence cases and radically changing the way that ‘no win, no fee’ deals work – but increasingly retailers, insurers and non-lawyers are moving into the law. We are concerned that vulnerable clients receive the advice they deserve and need.’

‘The prospect of committed specialists like ourselves being out-gunned by bigger operators in a changing legal landscape with bigger marketing budgets isn’t good for us. But, more importantly, it can be a disaster for clients who have already – and through no fault of their own – had the bad luck to have suffered accidents,’ Pryer says. ‘The idea behind Axiclaim, which will deploy innovative online marketing techniques and social media campaigns, is to make sure our message is heard.’

Axiclaim’s new website – www.axiclaim.co.uk – features the first ever dedicated medical negligence claims news blog – In The Loop – which is aimed at the consumer, health and legal press; patients and their families; as well as campaigners and academics. The site will be updated continuously. The aim is for the site to develop and become a valuable resource of information about issues relating to medical negligence and the law.

The site will be supported through three main social media channels – Pinterest, Facebook &Twitter.

Axiclaim has been working with online communications experts specialists Furlong PR since July 2012 to devise its online strategy.

‘The values that underpin Axiclaim are exactly the same as they were when I set Pryers up 10 years ago,’ Ian Pryer says. ‘Our clients want to know that they are dealing with an expert; secondly, they want to know that we understand what they have been through and that we will fight as hard as we can for them; and, thirdly, they want us to give them affordable legal solutions and as much price certainty as possible.”

Pryers Solicitors Act in Clinical Negligence Scheme Against Mr Manjit Bhamra

Pryers have recently become involved in a streamlined scheme in relation to medical negligence claims against Mr Manjit Bhamra

Mr Bhamra is a hip and shoulder orthopaedic surgeon who previously worked for the Rotherham NHS Foundation Trust and the Mid Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust.  A number of concerns were raised regarding his treatment and due to a great number of clinical negligence claims involving him, the NHS has set up a streamlined scheme for the assessment of claims and, where appropriate, the settlement of such claims.

For the purposes of the scheme, the NHS Ligitation Authority have waived the rules on the 3 year time limit for clinical negligence claims.  The deadline for this scheme has been extended to 30th September 2012, at which point the 3 year time limit will reapply.

The scheme is advantageous to potential claimants in that it is quick, simple, there is very little risk and the time limits have been waived.

Pryers have joined a specialist panel of solicitors who are dealing with the medical negligence claims against Mr Bhamra.

Anyone who has had treatment under Mr Bhamra and are dissatisfied or feels that he has made an error should come forward immediately even if they are outside of the 3 year time limit.  On 30th September, this time limit will reapply therefore it is important that anyone who believes they are outside the 3 year limit, contact a specialist solicitor immediately.

If you or anyone you know have concerns about your treatment by Mr Bhamra, please contact Pryers for a free assessment of your potential claim.  Richard Starkie and his team of solicitors are acting on a number of cases against Mr Bamhra.

Email: info@pryers.co.uk

Freephone No: 0800 316 0166

For more information on Mr Bhamra, please see below:

‘Still operating: the doctor whose botched surgery cost the NHS £1m’ The Telegraph

‘Operations by surgeon Manjit Bhamra prompt damages claims’ BBC News

NHS Press Release:

 Cut Off Date for Patients To Join Bhamra Scheme

 

Medical Lawyers Advise People Worried About Orthopaedic Treatment To Come Forward

 Patients who believe they have suffered complications as a result of NHS treatment carried out by Mr Manjit Bhamra, a Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon, have until 30 September 2012 to join a specially organised scheme to have their cases reviewed.

Specialist medical lawyers representing both patients and the NHSLA have agreed a protocol for the investigation of alleged complications arising from treatment provided by Mr Bhamra. The purpose of the scheme is to determine if patients are entitled to compensation and, if so, to deal with their cases as quickly and efficiently as possible.

Anyone who has suffered complications following NHS treatment provided by Mr Bhamra can ask for their case to be reviewed. Each case will be considered individually by specialist medical lawyers to decide if it can join the scheme.

It has been agreed that the scheme will include cases where the treatment was provided more than three years ago. Usually, claims have to be brought within three years of the medical treatment in question, but under the scheme the three year time-limit will not apply.

However, for cases where the treatment was provided more than three years ago the scheme will be closed on 30 September 2012. Any cases where the treatment was provided within the last three years will be looked at separately as such cases are still in time to go into the scheme.

A spokesman for the firms involved said: “We wholeheartedly welcome the co-operation of the NHS in agreeing to set up the scheme. We hope it will enable our clients’ concerns to be fully investigated and, where appropriate, for compensation to be paid so the individual patients who have been affected can start to move on with their lives.

“As firms we have currently submitted 93 cases regarding hip and shoulder surgery for review but it is too early to make further comment, as cases currently going through the scheme are at early stages and need further investigation by ourselves and the NHS.”

MISMATCHED HIP REPLACEMENT COMPONENTS.

As well as bringing claims in relation to the DePuy ASR hip replacement and the AES ankle replacements, Pryers are now investigating the practice of mixing and matching hip components.

Pryers Solicitors have recently been instructed by a patient in Cheltenham who was fitted with a head and cup made by Finsbury and a stem made by Zimmer.  She was fitted with this combination again on her other hip 6 months later.

Unfortunately, within 2 years, she began to suffer from significant pain in both hips and was found to have developed large pockets of fluid on both hips.  The components had worn out and failed at the junction between the head and the stem, releasing metal debris into the tissue around the joint and into her blood.

She has undergone two operations to remove the components so far, but it is likely she will require another operation in the next couple of months.

Why is mismatching components a bad idea?

Hip stems, which are long pieces of titanium that go into the thigh bone, have a tapered section on the top.  The ball of the joint is a separate piece, made of a cobalt-chromium alloy, which has a tapered hole on the back.  For the head to fit securely onto the stem, the tapers must be exactly the same.  Any tiny difference in the taper angle, even a fraction of a degree, will probably result in early failure of the joint.

The problem can be clearly seen in the illustration below.

Mis-Matched Hip Replacement JointMis-Matched Hip Replacement Joint

Pryers work with some of the world’s leading orthopaedic and engineering experts and through this work, we know that taper angles are all slightly different between manufacturers.

Components from different manufacturers must not be used together and the products’ instructions for use specifically warn against doing so.

Another problem with mismatched components is that they are completely untested.  Normally, a manufacturer puts its components through an exhaustive testing process using simulators and they have protocols for monitoring and following up their hip components once fitted to patients.  However, no manufacturer would test how their component works when paired with a product from another brand.  Therefore, when a surgeon mixes brands, he cannot have any idea at all how well they will work or how long they will last.  It is unlikely that patients are told that the combination of components they are to receive are incompatible and untested.

Moreover, there is absolutely no clinical advantage to using an unmatched set of components.

If you are in the Cheltenham area and have suffered a failure of your hip replacement, please contact Richard Starkie or a member of his team at Pryers.

Tel: 0800 316 0166

Email: hips@pryers.co.uk

Our team of experts have a wealth of experience dealing with medical negligence compensation claims.

 

MHRA concern about ankle replacements

On 18th July 2012, the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) issued a Medical Device Alert warning of problems with the Ankle Evolutive System (AES) made by the French company Transysteme and imported into the UK by Biomet.

They reported that the British Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society had reported a much higher than expected rate of failure due to osteolysis, which results in destruction of surrounding bone, usually as a reaction to debris particles breaking away from the components.

All unused components are to be returned to the manufacturer; they are no longer to be fitted to patients; and all patients who have received the products should undergo investigations to determine whether their prosthesis is failing or not.  If it is failing, it is likely that the components will have to be removed and, in many cases, the ankle joint will have to be fused.

The MHRA says that 450 patients have been fitted with these components and it is understood that many, if not most of these patients will have undergone surgery in Leeds, which was designated as a centre of excellence by the manufacturer and surgeons from across Europe attended to be taught how to fit the AES components.

Pryers already act for a number of patients in relation to this product and are working with a number of surgical and engineering experts to try to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to bring product liability claims for compensation against the manufacturer.

If you have been fitted with an AES component and are concerned, please contact Richard Starkie at Pryers Solicitors on 0800 316 0166 or email richard.starkie@pryers.co.uk.

The MHRA’s alert can be found here: – http://www.mhra.gov.uk/Publications/Safetywarnings/MedicalDeviceAlerts/CON174779

PIP Implants – ‘No Threat to Long-Term Health’

An expert team led by Professor Bruce Keogh, the NHS Medical Director, have concluded their review of PIP breast implants and whether the unauthorised silicone used can cause long-term health problems.

The final report has concluded that the implants are not toxic and there is no link to cancer.

However, the team has found that the implants are more likely to rupture (around two times higher) than other implants, leading to leakage and other physical problems caused by the reaction to the silicone.

The NHS advice to women remains the same – if they do experience any symptoms of a rupture or have any other concerns, they should contact their GP or their Surgeon to discuss their options which may include having a scan or having the implants removed and replaced.

Pryers Solicitors are dealing with a number of claims and liaising with other leading Product Liability Specialists to offer support to women who have been affected and to bring compensation claims on their behalf.

If you have had a PIP implant and wish to discuss your options, the team at Pryers can be contacted on pip@pryers.co.uk or 01904 556600.