Pryers now act for over 200 hip patients

January 27th, 2012

Pryers Solicitors of York now act for over 200 patients who have suffered the premature failure of their metal-on-metal hip replacements and resurfacings.  Claims for compensation are being brought against DePuy International Ltd, the UK distributor of the ASR and ASR XL hip products.

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.

hip_replacement

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.

hip_replacement_2

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.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Technorati
  • Live
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace

Pryers expands team dealing with defective hips

December 1st, 2011

new-recruitsPryers Solicitors of York now act for over 200 patients who have suffered the premature failure of their metal-on-metal hip replacements and resurfacings. Claims for compensation are being brought against DePuy International Ltd, the UK distributor of the ASR and ASR XL hip products.

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.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Technorati
  • Live
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace

NINE DAY DELAY IN DIAGNOSING PULMONARY EMBOLISM

August 24th, 2011

* Richard* sustained an injury to his Achilles tendon which required a plaster cast to be fitted. He complained to his local hospital in Newcastle of suffering from a hot, itchy and painful leg so his plaster was then changed. At this stage it was noted that his leg was bruised and extremely swollen. Richard requested that the hospital perform a scan of his leg but he was reassured that there was no need as his symptoms were normal for Achilles injuries.

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.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Technorati
  • Live
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace

FAILURE TO MAKE A REFERRAL FOR A SUSPICIOUS MOLE

August 22nd, 2011

In September 2008, *Simon* attended his local GP Surgery complaining of a mole on his chest which had changed in size and which he was worried about. He was assured by his local GP that it was nothing to worry about.

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.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Technorati
  • Live
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace

DAMAGE SUSTAINED DURING HYSTERECTOMY

August 19th, 2011

In September 2006 *Maria* underwent a hysterectomy at her local hospital in the North East. During the operation Maria’s right urethra was damaged but was not discovered until sometime after the operation when she began to feel unwell and suffer from right sided pain. It was not until some ten days later that a leak from the urethra as well as an obstruction was identified.

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.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Technorati
  • Live
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace