Successful negligence case settlements
Case study one
Hugh James recovers
£190.000 compensation for a client who was advised by his original
solicitors that a claim could not be made
Andrew Davies, solicitor and partner within the Clinical
Negligence team at Hugh James solicitors Cardiff has recently
settled a case of gallbladder clinical negligence brought against
Cwm Taf Local Health Board, where damages totalled £190,000
The claimant (AJ) underwent surgery in 2001 after being
diagnosed with stones in his gallbladder and bile duct. AJ
underwent a procedure known as endoscopic sphincterotomy to remove
the gallstones. After the procedure he began to suffer recurring
pain and illness and over four years later in November 2005 was
readmitted to hospital. Tests revealed that the gallbladder had
become inflamed and required removal. AJ was placed on a
waiting list for gallbladder removal surgery and given antibiotics
as a course of treatment.
In January 2006, surgery was performed to remove the inflamed
gallbladder and shortly after AJ began to suffer consistent
abdominal pain. Tests were preformed, which highlighted
abnormalities in liver function, prompting further investigation.
An ultra sound scan showed that fluid, believed to have come from
the bile duct had leaked into the abdominal area.
AJ began to deteriorate further and was transferred to the Queen
Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham where he underwent additional
surgery. It became apparent that he had sustained a major injury to
the bile duct following removal of his gallbladder, which required
reconstructive surgery. Due to complications from the initial
removal procedure, AJ will continue to endure health issues. He is
susceptible to further complications and may require additional
surgery.
AJ issued a complaint against the Cwm Taf Local Health Board for
what he considered to be gallbladder negligence. In response they
cited that an inflamed gallbladder had made the surgery difficult
and that the injury sustained was “forgivable”. AJ continued to
pursue his complaint and instructed solicitors, who on receipt of
an expert medical report, advised that a claim could not be
made!
It was suspected that improper legal advice had been given which
was confirmed by a secondary medical expert. AJ then instructed
Andrew Davies of Hugh James Solicitors Cardiff to act on his
behalf. Following the intervention by Andrew, on August
7th 2008 Cwm Taf Local Health Board admitted that
surgery had caused harm and prolonged illness to the patient, which
led to a settlement of £190,000 being awarded.
The entire episode was and will continue to be distressing for
AJ whose life has changed dramatically due to medical negligence.
Andrew Davies from the Medical Negligence team at Hugh James
Solicitors is quoted as saying “this was a challenging case, it
appeared everyone was against AJ but his belief and
determination led to him receiving the compensation he truly
deserved following an extremely difficult and life changing
period”.
AJ also offered comment and said “I’m disappointed by the
advice I received from my former solicitor. When I consulted
Andrew Davies of Hugh James Solicitors he was very professional and
had reassured me that there was merit in my claim. Andrew did
everything possible to assist me during this difficult period and I
regard him as a real gentleman, thank you”
Case study two
Hugh James
recovered almost £5million in compensation for client against Great
Ormond Street Hospital for breach of duty
Mrs E’s son developed
epilepsy at the age of 7 and despite changes of medication
continued to suffer erratic seizures. He was referred to a
Consultant Neurologist at Great Ormond Street Hospital where it was
decided to reduce the dose of his medications in an attempt to
provoke his seizures in order for them to be recorded.
The boy received his (reduced) medications at the hospital and
began a series of tests. The boy was to be monitored at all times
due to the reduced medication and the subsequent risks of this.
After being advised that his mother was leaving and that he was to
be monitored by a nurse the boy was left alone in his room. He then
left his room unaccompanied and went to the toilet unaided. There
he suffered a seizure and his airway was obstructed. This led to
inadequate ventilation and eventually, as a consequence of this,
the boy suffered from a cardiac arrest which resulted in
catastrophic brain injury.
The boy is now in a persistent vegetative state with heavy
nursing needs. Over time the boy has improved to a low awareness
state but has remained totally dependent for all activities of
daily living.
Proceedings were served and Great Ormond Street Hospital
subsequently admitted responsibility for the breach of duty.
An initial offer of £4,083,700 was made but not accepted. A further
meeting considered a number of factors and a proposed settlement of
£4,923,553 was offered. This was deemed as reflecting a good
settlement for the Claimant, and was preferable to the risks of
proceeding to trial.
At the same time Mrs E brought a separate claim in her own right
in relation to the nervous shock she sustained resulting from the
actions which led to her son’s injuries. She was the 2nd
Claimant in this case.
The initial offer of
£12,500 was rejected by Hugh James who considered her pain,
suffering and loss and the fact that she had undergone therapy as
recommended but had not made the expected recovery. Mrs E was
later reimbursed a total of £30,000.
Case study three
Over
£1million recovered for client against the Prince Charles Hospital
in Merthyr
Following a road traffic accident Mr P
suffered multiple injuries and was admitted to the Defendant's
Prince Charles Hospital. He had suffered serious, but not
apparently life threatening injuries. He had fractures to his right
femur, right foot, and left ankle. There were concerns however that
he may also have suffered internal injuries.
He was treated for shock and was resuscitated
overnight with fluids. He deteriorated during the course of the
following morning and the clinicians responded by giving more
resuscitation fluids on a number of occasions.
The quantities of fluid
given were excessive and insufficient attention was given to
recording and maintaining his fluid balance which led to the
“flooding” of the air spaces in his lungs by fluid. Following this
the Claimant sustained a catastrophic brain injury.
He now has limited
awareness of his surroundings, cannot speak, is doubly incontinent,
and is incapable of any voluntary movement.
The claimant suggested
that the injuries could have been avoided however the defendant
argued that the cause of the injuries were not preventable.
As there was no scope in
this case for responsibility for only part of the Claimant’s
injuries the result of the trial would therefore be “all or
nothing”. Proceedings were served and the defendant denied
liability.
A joint expert meeting
took place to discuss the cause of his injuries and from this it
was concluded that there was a strong element of uncertainty about
the outcome of this case. It was decided that the litigation risks
in this claim justified the consideration of a discounted
settlement.
The defendant offered to
compromise liability for 50% of the value of the claim but this was
rejected because there was concern that the claimant could be in a
position where the compensation could only meet a proportion of his
future needs.
Following this the claim
was finally settled and court approval given for a lump sum payment
of £1,407,946.48. In addition to this there will be annual life
time of payments of £104,874.90 for the Claimant’s future care and
future case management costs.