Valerie had a vaginal hysterectomy with anterior and posterior repair in January 1998. Following this, she complained of tightness at the entrance to her vagina.
In August 1999, she was referred to the defendant for laser surgery to improve the scarring. After examination the defendant proposed a much more extensive operation than initially recommended.
Although Valerie felt there was a blockage, the defendant advised that her difficulties were as a result of scarring to the perineum following the surgery.
In January 2000, Valerie underwent the laser treatment. This made no difference to her problems and having lost confidence in the defendant, she consulted another gynaecologist.
The second gynaecologist identified that Valerie was in fact suffering from vaginal shortening. Valerie underwent a vulval biopsy, perineotomy and division of the vaginal septum in May 2000.
A further procedure was necessary to divide the vaginal bridge in January 2002 and happily Valerie’s problems have been resolved.
We investigated a gynaecology negligence claim on Valerie’s behalf. Our expert gynaecologist considered that the first procedure proposed by the defendant was inappropriate and that the vaginal shortening was caused by his negligent operative technique.
Our expert said that if the correct procedure been performed, Valerie would have avoided the subsequent surgery and the considerable impact on her sexual relations with her husband.
Proceedings were issued in September 2003. The defendant initially denied liability and the matter was fixed for trial for the summer of 2004. The case eventually settled for £26,000, which Valerie was happy to accept.