Mark Bowman was approached by Mr Evans to represent him in a case against well known orthopaedic surgeon, Mr Y for surgery negligence. Mr Evans was diagnosed with osteoarthritis in both hips in September 2006. In April 2007 he was referred by his GP to see Mr Y. A number of consultations took place following which Mr Evans was advised to undergo a right hip resurfacing operation, scheduled for 14 January 2008.
It was alleged by Mr Evans, a well researched financial journalist, that at no point did Mr Y warn him of the fact that the operation might alter his leg length and that Mr Y has informed him that he had used the specific device he intended to implant (an ESKA prosthesis) on between 150-200 occasions when in fact this was not the case. In addition it was alleged Mr Y had failed to perform or record any sufficient clinical examination of Mr Evans' hips.
Had Mr Evans been correctly treated and informed he claimed he would not have undergone surgery on 14 January 2008 but considered his options. It was admitted by Mr Y that at no point did he record details of any physical examination or the possibility of a leg length discrepancy, but it was denied that Mr Evans was not verbally warned of such a risk or that he would not have undergone surgery on 14 January 2008.
Following surgery Mr Evans was left with a 3-4mm leg length inequality. He continued to see Mr Y who, in view of the inequality and increasing pain in the left hip, recommended Mr Evans undergo surgery to his left hip. The recommended surgery was a hip replacement not a hip resurfacing i.e. a different procedure to that which was performed on the right hip.
Surgery was performed on 28 September 2009. The consent form recorded a risk of "leg length inequality" but Mr Evans alleged he was never warned of a risk of increased leg length inequality, just that it was not possible to guarantee no leg length inequality after the second operation. He alleged that he made it absolutely clear to Mr Y that reducing his leg length inequality was his primary concern.
Following surgery Mr Evans was left with a leg length difference requiring him to wear an altered left shoe 2.2 cm higher than the right. It was alleged that the second operation was performed negligently in that not only has Mr Evans leg length inequality not been reduced but it had in fact been increased. It was denied this represented negligent treatment, it being argued the inequality was within reasonable limits.
Mr Evans was not only left with a significant leg length inequality but significant pain in his hips and lower back, requiring regular denervations. His ability to work as a self employed journalist was affected.
Expert evidence was obtained on behalf of Mr Evans and his case was due to be heard in the High Court in June 2013. Following a settlement meeting in May 2013, Mr Evans was offered £110,000 in settlement of his claim, which was accepted, without an admission of liability. This figure accounted for Mr Evans' pain, suffering and his lost earnings.
At the end of his claim Mr Evans commented:
"I chose Mark and Fieldfisher after speaking with two other solicitors at two other firms, neither of whom struck me as being assertive or energetic enough to represent me. Right from the start Mark believed in my case and he relentlessly pushed ahead. The case turned into a long, tough slog with constant delays created by the defendants, but Mark and Marise were always diligent in moving ahead as quickly as they could and responding to my concerns and questions. Mark also secured the services of a brilliant barrister to round out the team and that turned out to make a huge difference. I owe both of these guys very sincere thanks and they have been responsible not only for a materially important settlement that lifts many worries from my shoulders but also a very real sense of justice at last being delivered."
Contact us on freephone 0800 358 3848
Or start your claim online.
Fieldfisher is: ‘a firm full of the highest quality lawyers in the field' and has an 'outstanding depth of expertise’ - Legal 500 2015, Awarded Top Tier
"The group is praised for its commitment to 'demystifying the legal process' while this is a firm for which the client has always been a priority"
Fieldfisher's Personal Injury and Medical Negligence solicitors are proudly listed as 'Super Lawyers' in both on-line and off-line printed publishings.
Fieldfisher has successfully been recognised as an "Occupation and Asbestos Disease Specialists" Fieldfisher are now recognised as assessors
Fieldfisher are signatories of the Ethical Marketing Charter demonstrating our commitment to responsible, transparent and professional marketing.
Fieldfisher has been named as the winners of the Legal 500 United Kingdom 2015: *Claimant Clinical Negligence Award*. Testament to our expertise.
The psychology behind admitting a fatal mistake
Researchers at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine believe that better training in the social psychology behind how we're affected by making mistakes can help doctors to be more open when things go wrong.
Surgeon Ian Paterson's case proves private hospitals need proper regulation
Following the conviction last month of rogue surgeon Ian Paterson, the Royal College of Surgeons has rightly called for a review of the way private hospitals are regulated.
Fixed costs: The end of patient justice
A letter from the Action against Medical Accidents (AvMA), the charity for patient safety and justice, published in the Telegraph this week, asked the Health Secretary to reconsider proposals concerning fixed costs in clinical negligence claims.
TVT mesh: the biggest health scandal of our time?
Thousands of women have been left in excruciating pain having undergone what was for years mainstream NHS surgery to cure incontinence, usually following childbirth.
The Sun reports on Keith Barrett's case of Richard Giles, who died after being electrocuted when his lorry hit 11,000 volt cables