The team, headed by Richard Starkie, has been strengthened by the recruitment of two more solicitors, Lucy Macklin-Smith and Lindsay Perryman, who join Aftar Waris and Jamie Paddock.

The ASR hip was introduced in July 2003 and used extensively in a few areas of the UK, particularly York, North Tees, Surrey, Rotherham, Merseyside and Cardiff.  By 2007, a number of surgeons raised concerns that they were experiencing a higher than expected failure rate with the ASR.  DePuy’s response was that this was a problem with surgical technique, rather than a problem with the product.  However, as concerns grew, DePuy withdrew the product form the Australian market in December 2009 and from the rest of the world in August 2010.

Since then, hospitals have been recalling patients for tests, including blood tests; ultrasound and MRI scans; and aspirations of fluid from the hip.  Hundreds of people have been found to be suffering from excessive wear of the components, which can lead to damage to the soft tissues around the joint and even to the bone.  Revision surgery is then required, with a lengthy recovery period.  Patients frequently fail to make a full recovery and many require further surgery after revision.

Although, at the time of the product recall in August 2010, DePuy put the 5 year failure rate at 12-13%, some surgeons now estimate the 6 year failure rate as being as high as 49%.  If that is correct, it is likely that several thousand people in the UK alone will require further surgery.

Over the last 18 months, Pryers have worked with some of the world’s leading biomechanical engineers, biotribologists, metallurgists, metrologists, surgeons, toxicologists, epidemiologists, histopathologists and microbiologists.

We have been one of the leading law firms in the investigation of these claims and in the discussions with DePuy.

We have carried out extensive work the following: -

• the precise nature of the design defect;
• the testing procedures and how they failed;
• the manufacturer’s delay in recalling the product;
• establishing causation in individual cases and excluding other potential causes of joint failure;
• determining prognosis after an ASR failure;
• establishing causation of cobalt and chromium toxicity;
• and the long-term health risks posed by exposure to these metals.

We have also been instrumental in establishing and co-ordinating a patient support group for the North of England, called Altogether ASR, which has had several meetings and will shortly be launching a website.  The group’s next meeting will be in March 2012.  Please contact Pryers for details.

If you or a relative has suffered the premature failure of a metal-on-metal hip replacement or resurfacing, particularly the DePuy ASR, please contact Pryers Solicitors on 0800 316 0166 or by email at hips@pryers.co.uk.

The team, headed by Richard Starkie, has been strengthened by the recruitment of two more solicitors, Lucy Macklin-Smith and Lindsay Perryman.

The ASR hip was introduced in July 2003 and used extensively in a few areas of the UK, particularly York, North Tees, Surrey, Rotherham, Merseyside and Cardiff. By 2007, a number of surgeons raised concerns that they were experiencing a higher than expected failure rate with the ASR. DePuy’s response was that this was a problem with surgical technique, rather than a problem with the product. However, as concerns grew, DePuy withdrew the product form the Australian market in December 2009 and from the rest of the world in August 2010.

Since then, hospitals have been recalling patients for tests, including blood tests; ultrasound and MRI scans; and aspirations of fluid from the hip. Hundreds of people have been found to be suffering from excessive wear of the components, which can lead to damage to the soft tissues around the joint and even to the bone. Revision surgery is then required, with a lengthy recovery period. Patients frequently fail to make a full recovery and many require further surgery after revision.

Although, at the time of the product recall in August 2010, DePuy put the 5 year failure rate at 12-13%, some surgeons now estimate the 6 year failure rate as being as high as 49%. If that is correct, it is likely that several thousand people in the UK alone will require further surgery.

If you or a relative has suffered the premature failure of a metal-on-metal hip replacement or resurfacing, particularly the DePuy ASR, please contact Pryers Solicitors on 0800 316 0166 or by email at hips@pryers.co.uk.

Unknown to Richard, he had at this point developed a DVT which went undiagnosed for nine days until he collapsed and was rushed to his local hospital. As a result of the hospital’s failure to diagnose the pulmonary embolism (PE), he had to have a filter inserted for fourteen months and suffered with ongoing shortness of breath.

In September 2008, Richard approached Pryers Solicitors and investigations were commenced. Then in October 2009, Laura Turner, a solicitor specialising in clinical negligence, sent a letter to the Defendant’s setting out the allegations of negligence. In the Letter of Response, the Defendant admitted a breach of duty for failing to diagnose the DVT. However, the Defendant denied that there was any significant injury caused by this failure as Richard had a contra indication to anticoagulation.

Laura Turner undertook research into this area and discovered that some people with contra indication to anticoagulation can be preventively treated for a PE developing. She also found medical evidence to support the argument that at the very least all patients should be admitted and monitored carefully.

In 2011 these further allegations were put to the Defendant followed by an offer to settle the case for £5,000 plus costs, which was accepted.

However, over time the mole continued to grow, bleed and change in appearance. Simon re-attended his GP in November 2009 by which time the mole was nearly twice the size it previously was. In addition, it was also bleeding and irregular.

A referral was then made to a specialist at Simon’s local Hospital and a diagnosis of a malignant melanoma was made. Simon ultimately underwent excision of the melanoma but the cancer had proportionately spread to his brain, lungs and chest wall.

In February 2010, Simon contacted David Sears, a solicitior specialising in clinical negligence matters at Pryers Solicitors.

Investigations into the case were commenced and an expert opinion from a GP was obtained. The expert evidence was extremely supportive of the case on the basis that the Defendant had failed to make an urgent referral despite Simon presenting with classic signs of skin cancer.

Further expert evidence ws obtained from a Consultant Dermatologist who confirmed that had the cancer been detected sooner, then Simon would have had a greater life expectancy.

In July 2011, the Defendant’s insurers made an offer to settle of £45,000 plus costs. David Sears then entered into negotiations with the Defendant’s insurers and reached a settlement of £65,000 plus costs, which Simon was extremely happy to accept in full and final settlement.

In September 2009 Maria contacted David Sears, a solicitor specialising in clinical negligence matters at Pryers Solicitors.

Investigations were undertaken and expert evidence was obtained from a Consultant Gynecological Surgeon and a Consultant Neurologist. Both were in agreement that although the damage that was caused to the urethra was noted as a potential complication on the Consent Form, Maria had a normal anatomy and the Surgeon would have had a good surgical field of vision during the operation.

The Defendant commenced investigations shortly prior to the Defence being due and an early settlement offer of £10,000 was made. Maria happily accepted the offer given that she did not have any ongoing problems as a result of the negligence.

In July 2007 Harry underwent surgery without any DVT phylaxis. Unfortunately, five days later he was subsequently readmitted to his local Hospital complaining of chest and calf pain. He was subsequently diagnosed with pneumonia and discharged home only to return to hospital two weeks later after having been diagnosed with an extensive DVT.

Harry approached David Sears, a solicitor specialising in clinical negligence matters at Pryers Solicitors.

Investigations were undertaken and a letter setting out the allegations of negligence following supportive expert evidence was submitted to the Defendant. The Defendant then submitted a Letter of Response admitting breach of duty in respect of the surgery and failure to provide DVT phylaxis.

Harry had pre-existing venous insufficiency and limited function therefore the injury was limited to a six month period following the surgery. In an attempt to reach early settlement David Sears proposed an out of Court settlement in the sum of £17,000, which the Defendant rejected and made a counteroffer of £15,000. It was ultimately agreed that the matter would settle for £16,000 plus costs which Harry gladly accepted.

Following this diagnosis Michael underwent a hemicolectomy in November 2008 to ease his symptoms. Unfortunately, he did not recover well post-operatively and it was not until February 2009 that he underwent exploratory surgery. Following which it was subsequently discovered that Michael had a pelvic abcess, fistulas and adhesions.

In October 2009, Michael contacted Laura Turner, a solicitor specialising in clinical negligence matters at Pryers Solicitors.

Investigations into the case were commenced and an expert report from a Consultant Gastroenterologist was obtained. The expert’s report was not wholly supportive in that he was of the view that all of the management up to the operation in November 2008 was thought to be reasonable. The expert did, however criticise the hospital’s delay in performing appropriate investigations to confirm why Michael was not making any improvement.

A letter outlining the allegations of the hospital’s failings was sent to the Defendant and the Defendant responded admitting liability. This admission however was for a reduced period of time alongside an offer to settle of £1,000 plus costs. A counter offer of £5,000 plus costs was put forward to the Defendant which was rejected. The Defendant then offered £2,500 plus costs in full and final settlement, which Michael was happy to accept.

Paul attended his GP and was referred to his local treatment centre in Milton Keynes in March 2009 and underwent surgery to release the contracture in May 2009. Paul was then discharged home with pain relief and told to rest and keep his hand elevated. He had also been advised by a nurse to wriggle his fingers.

Paul returned to the treatment centre to have his dressing changed and to have stitches removed on two separate occasions, at neither of these appointments was Paul referred for physiotherapy.

Three weeks following his surgery Paul was continuing to experience pain and swelling in his hand and went to his local Walk in Centre where he was reassured and discharged. At his next appointment at the treatment centre he mentioned this again but was just told to keep wriggling his fingers and that the wound was healing nicely.

Paul returned to his GP on a number of occasions and was referred for further appointments at the treatment centre. He was also referred to a Hand Therapy unit where he was given some exercises and treatments to carry out, but which he found very difficult and painful.

After several sessions Paul went back to his GP and was referred to a different consultant. At this appointment he was informed that he should have had physiotherapy, starting 48 hours after the surgery and that as a result of not having this, the hand had stiffened up.

Paul has since seen a number of specialists and has undergone treatment but continues to suffer pain and is unable to clench his hand in a fist.

Paul contacted Pryers in September 2009 and his claim was managed by Alex McKnight, a clinical negligence specialist. His claim was funded by way of a ‘no win no fee’ agreement.

Pauls claim was investigated and expert evidence was sought from a Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon. With our investigations and this advice we submitted a Letter of Claim to the Defendant, who responded admitting breach of duty and offering £50,000 to settle in November 2010, which Paul was very happy to accept

The Defendant paid all of Paul’s legal costs so he had nothing to pay during or after the case and kept 100% of his compensation.

The surgery was completed by a trainee Dentist, following which it was discovered that one of the roots of the tooth had been left in place, but John was not informed of this.

Subsequently John started to suffer pain with his tooth and could feel something hard in his gum. He thought initially that this was a stitch in the gum.

Three weeks following the removal of the tooth John was still suffering pain and went to his GP who informed him that he had a potential abscess and advised John to go for a review at the hospital persisted.

A further four weeks later John attended the hospital as he was still unable to eat on the left side and was suffering severe pain. He was informed that the root of the Lower Left 6^th tooth was still in his gum and that this needed removing.

In December 2008 the root was finally removed.

However, John continued to suffer pain and attended his usual dentist in April 2009. He was informed that he was suffering bone loss around the Lower Left 5^th tooth and that part of the tooth was exposed following the procedure in October 2008 and a condition known as ‘dry socket’ had developed.

John contacted Pryers in March 2009 and his case was managed by Anna Renfree, a specialist in clinical negligence matters. His claim was funded by way of a ‘no win no fee’ agreement.

Investigations were carried out and a Letter of Claim was served in July 2010. In January 2011 the Defendant responded and admitted breach of duty. They made an offer to settle for £5,000 which John was happy to accept.

The Defendant paid all of John’s legal costs so he did not have anything to pay during or after the case and kept 100% of his compensation.

She was referred to hospital for investigations. At the hospital a number of investigations were carried out in April 2005, including a cervical smear test. The cervical smear was reported as normal. In fact the test was abnormal. It showed evidence of a severe cell change.

In November 2006 Jill returned to her GP complaining of heavy periods and inter-menstrual bleeding. She was referred to the hospital and was seen later that month. Following investigations by a specialist Jill was diagnosed with cervical cancer.

Jill underwent radiotherapy and chemotherapy in January and February 2007 and brachytherapy in February 2007. Jill then also started to suffer anxiety and depressive illness for which she was treated with medication and counselling.

It appeared that Jill was responding well to treatment and was referred back to the care of her original hospital.

However, in January 2008 Jill returned to her GP complaining of back pain and was referred to hospital for investigations. These investigations revealed that her cancer had returned, and spread to her lungs.

Jill underwent surgery on the lung during August 2008 and surgery by way of pelvic exoneration in October 2008, following which she required a permanent colostomy and had to self-catheterise.

Jill became unable to work and required a high level of care and assistance from her family.

Jill contacted Alex McKnight, a clinical negligence specialist at Pryers to investigate what had happened and help her with her future needs. Her case was funded by a ‘no win no fee’ agreement.

Our investigations showed that the cervical smear test done by the hospital in April 2005 had been reported wrongly and that had this been reported correctly Jill would have been treated by way of hysterectomy, and, on the balance of probabilities, would have led to a complete cure. We obtained expert evidence from a Consultant in Clinical Oncology

The Defendant admitted in June 2009 that they had breached their duty of care owed to Jill but did not admit that this breach of duty had led to Jill’s subsequent pain and additional treatment.

The Defendant eventually admitted that its breach of duty had caused Jill’s ongoing problems and offered an interim payment of £30,000 and asked for information to consider the full value of the claim, which we provided.

On the basis of this information the Defendant offered £235,000 to settle the claim in October 2010, which Jill was happy to accept.

The Defendant also paid all of Jill’s legal costs so she had nothing to pay throughout the case or at the end.