In May 2013, XX underwent spinal surgery following which she suffered a perforated bowel and a series of ongoing associated back problems. We alleged that the Claimant suffered both physical and psychological injuries as a direct consequence of the surgical and post-surgical management, including an alleged inadequate consenting procedure.
A major issue in the case hinged on the issue of informed consent. It was the Claimant's case that during a pre-operative assessment with her Orthopaedic Surgeon, she was given three options for treating her back pain – injections, interspinous spacers (surgical option), bone trim (decompression surgery). But the risks and benefits of each were not explained, nor were the comparative success/failure rates, particularly in light of her pre-existing condition. Notes of the consultation were sparse, with few details recorded.
The Claimant, a woman in her 60s, was advised to do her own online research before making a decision. It transpired from expert evidence obtained on behalf of the Claimant that even orthopaedic surgeons would have found it difficult to make a decision based on the wide-ranging information available online.
In light of the limited information provided to her, the Claimant went for the "middle" option.
At a review appointment prior to surgery, the Claimant's surgeon recorded the wrong procedure to be done and also provided little detail about the procedure itself, including the number of spacers to be inserted, and where they would be inserted.
During surgery, the surgeon perforated the Claimant's bowel, something not identified until three days later. She developed peritonitis and had to have an emergency laparotomy and colostomy bag fitted. She had to stay in hospital for more than six weeks, thereafter requiring regular District Nursing care for six months until she underwent a colostomy reversal.
Her back pain continued and it was only when she was referred to a Consultant Neurosurgeon in 2016 for further surgery that additional problems were uncovered. It was found two spacers had been inserted, both in the wrong place and which therefore had to be removed. The Claimant has experienced some improvement post procedure, but her symptoms have never completely resolved.
During proceedings, the Defendant admitted the Claimant's bowel had been perforated during surgery. They did not accept the consent process was inadequate. It was stated that the Claimant had been given a sheet of paper containing website addresses and search engine search terms, to look up. But it was accepted that this information was not documented. They also considered that the Claimant did not suffer any psychiatric injury.
The parties exchanged liability and quantum evidence, but remained some way apart on their respective valuations of the case. Trial was listed for May 2019.
The parties agreed to attend mediation in an effort to settle the case, prior to expert discussions which were due to take place shortly. After more than five hours of discussion, agreement could not be reached. However, a few days later, the Defendant accepted the Claimant's offer of settlement that had been made at the mediation.
At the end of the case, Mrs XX's husband said "We both feel that we need to write to you to express our thoughts on the way you handled our whole case. You were fully aware at all times that XX was very fragile, and conducted our phone calls and meetings with that in mind. Having said that, we found you the most tenacious person we have ever come across. Even in our darker times, your positive personality helped us through some tricky situations. Should we ever have to go down this path again, we would genuinely love to have you by our side."
- You can speak to our medical negligence solicitors on freephone 0800 358 3848
- e-Mail them at email@example.com
- Complete the short enquiry form
All enquiries are completely free of charge and they will investigate all funding options for you including no win, no fee.
Contact us on freephone 0800 358 3848
Or start your claim online.
"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 has successfully been recognised as an "Occupation and Asbestos Disease Specialists" Fieldfisher are now recognised as assessors
Charities we support
Hugely successful case management day focuses on best practices for clients
Partners Jane Weakley and Anna Bond spoke at a well-attended case management day this week about collaborative working practices to achieve the best outcome for clients.
New NHS sepsis guidelines will prompt earlier diagnosis and save lives
Following a huge amount of work by the UK Sepsis Trust, in conjunction with the Royal College of Physicians and NHS England, new treatment protocols for suspected sepsis have been issued by NHS England.
Six figure settlement in missed diagnosis of DVT in A&E at Kingston Hospital
Arti Shah has secured a six-figure settlement for Mahadeva Mahindan after a missed diagnosis of his wife's DVT leading to brain damage and subsequent death.
Client Becky Tyler speaks at Parallel Worlds conference about cerebral palsy and videogames
Hugely talented client Becky Tyler gave a presentation on eye gaze gaming and Minecraft at the Victoria and Albert Museum as part of the Parallel Worlds conference.
Bridget Collier leads Fieldfisher sponsored walk for Greater Manchester Asbestos Victim Support Group Charity
Fieldfisher represents parents of Yousef Al-Kharboush who died in ITH Pharma contaminated baby feed case