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.

The wound was stitched closed in A&E and she was given antibiotics tablets before being allowed home.

Unfortunately, Jane began to feel unwell after sleeping through the night.  The following morning she had a fever and her arm felt very painful and heavy.  She also noticed there was an area of redness spreading out from underneath the dressing.  She went back to the A&E department at her local hospital.

A plastic surgeon examined her wrist and explained that the wound should have been left open for at least five days in order to prevent infection.  Jane was admitted to hospital immediately and given intravenous fluids and antibiotics.  She underwent a further 3 operations to thoroughly clean and debride the wound.  Jane now has extensive scarring and struggles to use her dominant hand without pain.

In August 2010, Jane approached Pryers Solicitors and investigations were begun by Richard Starkie, a Solicitor specialising in Clinical Negligence.  In October of the same year, having obtained copies of Jane’s medical records and x-rays, Richard wrote to the Hospital Trust setting out the allegations of negligence.  The Trust responded and denied any liability.

Richard then instructed an expert in accident and emergency medicine, who supported Jane’s case unreservedly.  The expert stated that the wound should not have been stitched in the A&E department.  The wound should only have been stitched closed once a plastic surgeon had performed a thorough cleaning and debridement of the wound.

A hand surgeon was then instructed in order to provide a view on the effect of the failure and how Jane’s wrist was at the time.  The expert stated that if the wound had not been stitched closed in the A&E department then the risk of developing a serious infection would have been less than half.  The hand plastic surgeon also stated that Jane’s injury and infection had caused considerable short term pain and disability, and pain, weakness and stiffness in the long term.

These points were put to the Defendant but it maintained its denial of liability so Court proceedings were issued and served on the Trust.

The Defendant then made an initial settlement offer of £7,500.  This was rejected and Richard entered into negotiations with the Defendant.  Jane’s case was settled for £20,000.

The case was funded by a conditional fee agreement and Jane kept all of her compensation, with nothing to pay towards legal costs.

Unfortunately, during the procedure the performing surgeon removed excessive tissue when forming the left implant pocket. This occurred when electrically induced heat was used to seal a bleed within the pocket. The removal of the excessive tissue did not perforate the skin but it did reduce the underlying tissue.

Although the burn that resulted on the surface of the skin healed after approximately three months, Rachel was left with a small round visible scar on the upper inner side of her left breast, directly on her cleavage. The scar was similar in appearance to a cigarette burn and measured 1.5 centimetres in diameter.

In September 2009, Rachel contacted Laura Turner, a solicitor specialising in clinical negligence at Pryers Solicitors.

Investigations into the case were made and an expert opinion from a Consultant Plastic Surgeon was sought. The expert evidence was supportive of the case and critical of the way in which the procedure had been carried out.

In July 2011, the Defendant put forward an offer to settle for £2,500 plus costs, which started negotiations. The Defendant eventually settled the claim for £4,250 plus costs.

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.

Pryers are proud to be one of Simon’s sponsors  on this admirable challenge and wish him all the very best in this rally.

Martin House Hospice cares for Children and Young People with progressive life limiting illnesses, and provide support to their families. They are based in a purpose built hospice in Boston Spa, Wetherby and care for children and young people from throughout the Yorkshire region.

If you would like to sponsor Simon, please go to his web page at www.justgiving.com/simon-morris2