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 PROVIDE DVT PROPHYLAXIS

August 17th, 2011

*Harry* had a history of right DVT and pulmonary embolism from March 2006. He subsequently was admitted to his local Hospital in April 2007 to undergo a right leg varicose vein procedure. The performing Surgeon however, did not examine Harry’s leg and he was not provided with any DVT phylaxis as a preventative measure.

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.

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

Dental negligence claim for tooth extraction settled for £5,000

February 18th, 2011

In October 2008 John attended his local Dental Hospital to have his Lower Left 6th tooth removed.

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 6th 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 5th 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.

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

Cancer sufferers take frozen sperm case to appeals court

November 25th, 2008

Cancer sufferers take frozen sperm case to appeals court

A group of six cancer sufferers who opted to have their sperm frozen so that they could still father children but then saw it destroyed in a freezer accident are taking their case to an appeals court.

The samples were destroyed at Southmead Hospital, in Bristol in June 2003, spoiling their only chance of retaining their fertility, the Times reports.

Although North Bristol NHS Trust admitted a breach of duty, a judge ruled that the men should not receive compensation because the sperm samples were not a living part of their bodies and were therefore not eligible to make a case for personal injury.

However, some of Britain’s top judges are now to hear the case after the men sought legal action to appeal.

Their legal representative said: "This is a grey area but, looked at correctly, we say this is a classic case of personal injury."

The hearing is expected to conclude later this week.

Following the freezer incident, the Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority implemented new rules to safeguard frozen sperm, eggs and embryos in case of equipment failure.

ADNFCR-1694-ID-18893639-ADNFCR

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

Mother to sue hospital after birth injury

October 10th, 2008

Mother to sue hospital after birth injury

A woman has issued a high court writ on behalf of her son who was injured at birth.

Gillian Wick claims that, during a difficult delivery, staff at Heatherwood Hospital in Ascot pulled too hard on Jack Wicks’ head.

This, she alleges, caused Erb’s Palsy – paralysis of the arm caused by injury to the upper group of the arm’s main nerves.

Jack, now nine, has reduced motion in his right arm, making tasks such as getting dressed difficult, GetBracknell.co.uk reports.

He has already had to undergo major operations on his arm and is likely to need more treatment in the future.

Ms Wicks is claiming £300,000 on Jack’s behalf and the hospital has agreed to a breach of duty through "inappropriate traction", although the two sides are yet to agree upon how much compensation will be paid to Jack.

If an out of court settlement has not been reached soon, judges at the high court will make a decision as to the sum.

ADNFCR-1694-ID-18820877-ADNFCR

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