Neurosurgery cases
W v Princess Alexandra Hospital NHS Trust
W’s claim concerned delays in the diagnosis of a non-malignant
tumour in her spine. Following the onset of back pain and burning
sensations in her feet and lower legs, W saw a rheumatologist who
performed a spinal x-ray in October 2002 revealing the presence of
a spinal tumour.
W’s hospital failed to advise her of the x-ray results and
failed to arrange for urgent MRI scanning. There was a delay
of about 8 months before the MRI scan and referral to a
neurosurgeon were eventually made.
By the time of the delayed operation, the tumour had invaded the
nerves around the base of the spine and as a result, even after the
surgery, W was left with an incomplete cauda equina syndrome which
severely limits her mobility and affects her bowel and bladder
function.
Richard Earle was instructed in place of other solicitors who
had advised against taking the case any further. Specialist
reports were obtained in the fields of neurology, neurosurgery and
neuroradiology. These confirmed that the poor outcome would
have been avoided with earlier surgery. Indeed, W probably
would not have needed a wheelchair for mobility.
In the legal proceedings, the hospital admitted errors for the
delayed MRI scan and neurosurgical referral but contended that due
to her age, the size and spread of the tumour that such delay did
not make any difference to the outcome.
The case was listed for Trial in April 2008. A few months
beforehand, the Claimant accepted the Defendant’s offer of £400,000
damages together with her legal costs in settlement.
The case was initially privately funded and then conducted on a
“no win, no fee” basis.
“A number of firms of solicitors that we approached told us it
was a hopeless case and refused to help.
Thankfully we found Richard who was willing to “have a go”.
We are so grateful for his dedication and perseverance which,
against the odds, brought us the settlement we felt we
deserved”.
C v Royal London Hospitals NHS Trust
Mark Bowman acted for the parents of A
following his death on 26 April 2004, aged 17.
A had a craniopharyngioma which required a shunt. There was a
shunt blockage in April 2004 and surgery was carried out to
alleviate this.
 |
|
Post-operatively, the parents sat by A’s bedside night and day.
During this period, they noted a marked deterioration in his
condition and that he had become incontinent of urine.
Notwithstanding the parents concerns no doctor attended. The
deterioration was not recognised and sadly A suffered a cardiac
arrest and died on 26 April 2004.
Expert evidence was obtained from a Neurosurgeon who was
critical in respect of the performance of the shunt revision and
failing to monitor A’s condition post-operatively. He asserted
that, with appropriate care, A would have survived and made a good
recovery.
Shortly after receipt of the Letter of Claim the Defendant
admitted liability but denied that the parents were entitled to
recover any damages. We obtained the appropriate evidence from a
psychiatrist and the Defendant accepted the inevitable. After
lengthy negotiations, Mark Bowman settled the claim in the sum of
£120,000.
|
The case was conducted on a “No win, No
fee” basis.
After the case, A’s father said: “I do not know how we would
have coped without you. My wife had lost the will to carry on but
thanks to your work, my wife now has a pattern to her life again.
It shows what a remarkable job you did for us both”.
R v Sengupta
The Claimant was a successful business man who had consulted the
Defendant, a Consultant Neurosurgeon privately in connection with
neck pain. On 18 October 2001, during an operation on his cervical
spine, the Defendant severed the right 5th and caused trauma to the
right 6th cervical nerve roots. As a result R suffered severe
disablement to his right (dominant) arm and shoulder and
consequently the use of his hand. R underwent remedial surgery in
March 2002 and although he has made a remarkable recovery he
remains significantly disabled.
On R’s behalf Paul McNeil argued that the surgeon was negligent
in that he undertook surgery when there was no necessity to do so,
performed surgery which carried greater risks owing to the fact
that the same surgeon had operated 14 weeks previously in the same
area, used a technique which carried greater risk, failed to stop
the surgery when he encountered significant scar tissue, failed to
protect the C5 and C6 nerve roots and failed to recognise that he
had severed the C5 nerve (which he was seeking to decompress)
during the course of the surgery.
Until service of the Defence liability was denied.
There was a significant difference between the parties as to the
valuation of the claim.
In the event settlement negotiations took place and the case was
eventually settled in the sum of £600,000.