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

British Medical Journal Tells the Story of the DePuy ASR Hip

May 20th, 2011

In one of the most critical articles yet written, an investigator at the British Medical Journal has recently told the story of the DePuy ASR prosthetic hip: how it came onto the market; what testing was carried out; and how DePuy responded to complaints from surgeons.

Dr Deborah Cohen, working alongside Channel 4’s Dispatches programme, spoke to those involved in the UK, Australia and the USA and asks how it can be that such safety-critical products can be sold and fitted to patients without the sort of rigorous testing and independent clinical trials to which drugs are subjected? As well as looking at DePuy’s actions, she also considers the role played by the UK’s regulatory body, the MHRA.

The article is well worth reading for anyone interested in the failure of the ASR hip and other metal-on-metal prosthetic hips.

The full text can be found here: – http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.d2905.full.

Pryers Solicitors LLP is a specialist medical law firm and acts for over 100 people, throughout the UK, who have suffered the failure of their ASR hip. Product liability claims are being brought against DePuy International Ltd.

Anyone who has suffered from the failure of their ASR joint is encouraged to contact Pryers’ Hip Product Liability Team on 01904 556600 or by email at hips@pryers-solicitors.co.uk.

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

Patient Support Group Formed for DePuy ASR Patients

January 31st, 2011

A patient group is to be formed, for those people affected by the failure of the DePuy ASR prosthetic hip joint.

It is hoped that the group will allow the opportunity to meet other people who have been affected, to discuss concerns and experiences on an informal basis.

While the group will be organised and run by the patients themselves, the first meeting is being arranged by Pryers Solicitors.

It is intended that the first meeting will take place in York on Saturday 12th February 2011.

If you would be interested in attending, please contact Richard Starkie or Richard Greensit at Pryers Solicitors on 0800 316 0166 or by email at richard.starkie@pryers-solicitors.co.uk or richard.greensit@pryers-solicitors.co.uk

Pryers Solicitors LLP is a York law firm specialising in medical law.  Pryers acts for a large and growing group of clients in damages claims against DePuy International Ltd, in relation to the failure of the DePuy ASR hip products, which were withdrawn from the market in August 2010.

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

DePuy ASR Hip Replacement Products

January 14th, 2011

Pryers Solicitors now act for a large and growing group of patients who have suffered the failure of their DePuy ASR hip. Some received the joint in total hip replacement surgery and some in hip resurfacing.

Most of the cases will be brought as product liability claims against the manufacturer, DePuy, but some may become clinical negligence claims, if the evidence shows that the joint was fitted incorrectly or was not suitable for the patient.

DePuy has already withdrawn the joint from the market and guidance has been issued by DePuy and also by the British Hip Society as to what investigations should be carried out to determine whether a particular patient’s joint has failed or not.

The problem is thought to be caused by the socket’s subhemispheric shape, that is to say that it does not cover as much of the head of the joint as other products do. This means that there is less surface area and therefore higher pressure between the two parts of the joint. Also, there is a groove around the inside rim of the socket, which further reduces the surface area and increases the pressure. The increased pressure forces the body’s natural lubricating fluid out of the joint causing the metal to rub against metal, which soon wears away.

As the joint surface wears, small metal particles break away from the surface of the socket, becoming imbedded in muscles and ligaments around the joint. This causes inflammation, pain and the joint rapidly fails, causing a wide range of other symptoms. The metal particles get into the patient’s blood stream, but it is not yet known what long-term effect this might have.

If the joint has failed, revision surgery will be required, which tends to be more difficult and carries higher risks of complications. Often, a revised hip will not work as well or last as long as a first hip replacement or resurfacing, meaning that the effects of the joint failure will often be life-long.

Studies published so far have shown that the failure rate of the ASR is much higher than that of other similar products and research to be published very shortly will show that the ASR fails more than 10 times faster than the market-leading hip resurfacing product.

Pryers have commissioned expert evidence from engineers and surgeons and are working with other law firms in England, Ireland and the USA towards proving that the ASR hip is defective and obtaining fair compensation for patients who have been injured.

If you have undergone hip replacement or hip resurfacing and have symptoms of joint failure, and believe you might have had an ASR joint, please contact Richard Starkie or Richard Greensit of Pryers Solicitors.

Richard.starkie@pryers-solicitors.co.uk

Richard.greensit@pryers-solicitors.co.uk

Telephone 0800 316 0166

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