Gynaecology cases
K v The Central Manchester and Manchester Children's
University Hospitals NHS Trust
Mrs K gave birth to a baby boy on 08 August
2005. During the course of delivery she suffered a perineal tear.
She was referred by the midwife to the Surgical SHO who examined
Mrs K and who noted a tear. The SHO repaired the tear, believing it
to only be a second degree tear and therefore no rectal examination
was performed. In fact the tear was a fourth degree tear
involving damage to both the internal and external sphincter and
causing an ano-vaginal fistula.
Mrs K was discharged home on 10 August 2005.
On 23 September 2005 Mrs K was referred back to hospital suffering
with the passing of faeces and flatus into her vagina. She also
suffered with anal incontinence and anal soiling on a daily basis,
causing her great distress and embarrassment, and effectively
leaving her housebound.
Mrs K continued to suffer from severe symptoms
of faecal incontinence until a secondary repair operation was
finally performed in July 2006, following which her ano-vaginal
fistula healed and she noticed a marked improvement in anal
control. Mrs K was referred for bio-feedback sessions which led to
a further improvement in her symptoms to the extent that she was
able to return to work.
Mrs K instructed Mark Bowman, who acted under
the terms of a Conditional Fee Agreement.
Expert advice was sought from a Consultant
Gynaecologist as well as a Consultant Colo-Rectal Surgeon. A
Letter of Claim was served on the Defendants alleging negligence in
failing to perform a rectal examination, which would have revealed
the full extent of the sphincter damage and which would have led to
an immediate primary repair operation. It was claimed that with
such an operation, Mrs K would have avoided the symptoms that she
suffered with for the next 11 months and would have been able to
return to work following her maternity leave. Expert evidence
confirmed that Mrs K's long term symptoms would have been the same,
regardless of whether the repair was performed in August 2005 or
July 2006.
The Defendants admitted negligence in their Letter of Response
and put forward an offer of £35,000 in settlement of Mrs K's claim,
which was accepted. Mrs K received the full £35,000 and did not pay
any legal fees.
G v Homerton University Hospital NHS Foundation
Trust
Ms G had a history of numerous gynaecological operations. In June
2005 she was referred to the Homerton Hospital because of pain at
intercourse and painful periods. An ultrasound scan was performed
which revealed multiple fibroids and it was agreed that Ms G
required a subtotal hysterectomy and right
salpingo-oophorectomy.
Ms G underwent surgery on 21 September 2005. Post operatively she
was monitored and was allowed to go home on 24 September 2005.
On the morning of 25 September 2005 Ms G developed sudden severe
abdominal pain and was re-admitted by ambulance to the Homerton
Hospital. She arrived at 10:20. She was examined on admission and
was noted to be shivering uncontrollably and cold to touch.
Examination of her abdomen revealed guarding and rebound
tenderness, suggestive of peritonitis, however a diagnosis of
infection was made instead. Ms G was given antibiotics and
sporadically monitored, until 21:30, when a chest x-ray was
performed. The x-ray showed gas under the diaphragm, indicating a
perforated bowel. In spite of this, no surgical opinion was sought,
and Ms G continued to receive further antibiotics. It was not until
a colo-rectal surgeon was called, at 23:15, that a diagnosis of a
perforated sigmoid colon was made, and an urgent laparotomy,
sigmoid colectomy and primary anastomosis loop ileostomy were
performed.
Ms G's recovery was lengthy and complicated, and she remained in
ICU until 09 October 2005 and was not finally discharged until 16
November 2005. She was initially unable to return to work as a
teacher until June 2006.
Mark Bowman received instructions to act for Ms G in March 2006
with the benefit of LSC funding. Expert opinion was sought from a
Consultant Gynaecologist and a Consultant Colo-Rectal Surgeon and a
Letter of Claim was served on the Defendant alleging that there had
been a negligent delay in treating Ms G following her re-admission
to hospital on 25 September 2005. It was argued that but for the
delay, Ms G's length of admission to the ITU department, her post
operative symptoms including continuing sepsis requiring a Vacupac,
and her period of convalescence, would all have been significantly
reduced.
Following protracted negotiations with the Defendants, Ms G
received the sum of £7,500 in settlement of her claim. She did not
pay any legal fees.
At the conclusion of the case Ms G wrote "Mark, I am writing
this final email to say thank you to you. From the very first time
I came to see you you have constantly remained reliable,
supportive, honest and always prompt in your actions. I must admit,
like other people probably, that I really was expecting my first
dealings with a solicitor to be a struggle and battle to get things
done. You dispelled all those doubts. You did everything you said
you would quickly and efficiently and always with humour, patience
and politeness. You made this journey as pain free as possible and
I want you to know how much I really appreciate that. I hope I
never have need of legal assistance again but if I do I know where
to come!!!!"
Endersby v. Jurkovic
Daily Mail 19 August 2006
“An eminent surgeon has agreed to pay more than £500,000 in
damages to the family of a woman who died during a routine
operation.
Catherine Ferguson – a £90,000-a-year BT manager – bled to death
after Davor Jurkovic punctured a major blood vessel during a simple
hospital procedure.
Lawyers acting on behalf of Mrs Ferguson’s 11-year-old son sued
the doctor for clinical negligence in a case that was due to be
heard at the High Court last month.
But the surgeon agreed to pay substantial damages – thought to
be at least £500,000 – in an out-of-court settlement just days
before the hearing.
Mrs Ferguson, 41, went to see Mr Jurkovic at King’s College
Hospital, South London, as a private patient in July 2003 when she
was suffering from abdominal pain.
The surgeon carried out a laparoscopy – a procedure which
involves inserting a fibre-optic cable with a camera on the end
into the stomach while the patient is under general anaesthetic.
But the probe slipped and ruptured her aorta, a major artery
connected to the heart. Despite desperate attempts to save her, she
died from blood loss.
A verdict of misadventure was recorded at in inquest into her
death at Southwark Coroner’s Court in 2003.
Mr Jurkovic denied that he was negligent, but issued an apology
to the Fergusons and agreed to pay compensation, which will be
covered by his insurers. Mrs Ferguson had the operation on a
Saturday and had been expecting to return to work on the following
Monday.
Her lawyer Paul McNeil said yesterday:
‘At the very beginning of the surgery, the operation went terribly
wrong. During the insertion of an instrument into the abdomen, the
surgeon ruptured Catherine’s aorta.
‘Notwithstanding the emergency attendance of a number of other
doctors to theatre, Catherine bled to death.’
Mrs Ferguson’s parents Donald, a retired RAF officer, and
Patricia, who live in Eastbourne, East Sussex, have been left
distraught by the tragedy.
Her mother said: ‘She was a beautiful, a lovely person.’
Mr Ferguson added: ‘It’s been a very difficult time for everyone
and now we are just trying to get on with our lives.’
Their daughter, a keen hockey player, was educated at the Royal
Latin School in Buckingham.
Her son Fergus lives in London with his father Mark Endersby – a
chartered accountant who was divorced from Mrs Ferguson.
Mr McNeil said Mrs Ferguson – who worked at the London Stock
exchange before taking up her position at BT – had ‘considerable
earning power’ ahead of her.
She headed a department pioneering new technology at the
telecoms company. Mr Jurkovic, who qualified in Yugoslavia in 1981
claims that he ‘followed standard textbook procedures.’
The rupture of the aorta was ‘an event which could occur even in
the best surgeon’s hands’, he added.
But just before the High Court hearing, he agreed to pay ‘very
substantive damages and apologised to Catherine’s son’, Mr McNeil
said.
Mr Jurkovic’s apology, given through his counsel, said: ‘Whether
this court would ultimately have held Mr Jurkovic legally liable in
respect of this tragedy is a matter for conjecture.
‘What is not in doubt is that legally liable or not, Mr Jurkovic
is and keenly feels, responsible for what happened.
‘And the fact that his patient died during a minor operative
procedure is something for which he offers a heartfelt and sincere
apology’."