Orthopaedics cases
H v Lewisham Hospital NHS Trust
In January 2003 the Claimant fell on his left, non-dominant arm.
He attended the A&E Department of the hospital. A fracture of
the left humerus was diagnosed. The arm was immobilised in a sling.
H was discharged home for follow-up at the fracture clinic.
Later, he was advised to undergo surgery, namely intramedullary
nailing of the fracture.
Pre-operatively it was noted that his radial nerve was
normal.
During the surgery the surgeon used too much force and
inserted too big a nail which caused the fracture to extend.
In addition, the radial nerve was cut.
But for the mistakes, H would have recovered within about twelve
weeks. Instead, he had radial nerve palsy and required further
surgery (which involved nerve and tendon transfers). In addition,
his wrist was surgically fused and he remains in permanent pain in
his left elbow with reduction of range and movement.
Samantha Critchley obtained medical
evidence from a Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon and a Consultant
Psychiatrist. We argued that H Had lost any chance of a return to
work because of the negligence.
Proceedings were served in May 2006. The Defence made some
admissions of liability but argued that the Claimant was
contributorily negligent.
The case was listed for trial in October 2007.
After negotiations, Samantha Critchley ultimately secured a
settlement in H’s favour in the sum of £75,000. H received all his
damages and the case was supported by Legal Aid.
J v Whittington Hospitals NHS Trust
On 16 November 2002, J fractured his right elbow and was
admitted to the hospital for surgery to his right ulna.
During the course of the surgery, the Claimant’s right ulna
nerve was negligently damaged causing J to suffer injury including
sensory motor deficit to his right hand.
As a result, he had five operations to try and improve the
condition of his right hand. He was left with permanent numbness
and scarring and with residual problems in fine motor skills and
doing heavy manual work, including decorating and gardening.
A Letter of Claim was sent in March 2004 which resulted in an
admission of liability and an offer of £40,000.
This was rejected.
The main area of dispute was in relation to loss of earnings.
The Defendants’ case was that J could perform at his previous
levels.
The case was settled in March 2007 shortly before the trial in
the sum of £142,500.
Samantha Critchley acted for J
initially with the benefit of public funding and later on a “no
win, no fee” basis when his financial circumstances changed.
T v. Guy's & St Thomas' Hospital NHS
Trust
T suffered from a degenerative left hip following the
development of avascular necrosis. In January 2000 she underwent a
total left hip replacement. The operation performed was
unsatisfactory in that the prosthesis was not correctly inserted by
the surgeon. It was contended that this must have been evident at
the time of the operation and in the immediate post operative
x-rays.
In the event, as a result of the poor surgical technique, T
suffered a dislocation of the left hip. Further revision surgery
was necessary in April 2000. Sadly during the course of this
surgery the surgeon caused significant damage to her gluteal
nerves, which control the abductor muscles in the legs.
Notwithstanding attempts to reconstruct the abductor mechanism T
is left with a loss of power in her abductor muscles in her left
leg.
As a result she walks with a limp and has significant hip, back
and neck pain.
T issued proceedings against the Trust which eventually settled
the claim a few weeks before trial in the sum of £200,000.
The case was conducted with the assistance of Legal Aid and T
did not have to pay any legal costs.
After the case Mrs T wrote to Paul
McNeil as follows:
“I would like to thank you on behalf of
myself and my family. When the medical profession ignored me and
made me feel like a second class citizen, without any regard for
the damage that they had done to me, it was your company that
believed in me and fought my case.
Winning this case means so much to me.
Although the settlement will help, it is the fact that the
consultant that did this to me now has to answer for his
negligence. Being a working class woman, this consultant thought he
could ignore me and silence me with his power and the medical
professions behind him. With your guidance I was able to challenge
him. I would like to give you my heartfelt thanks for your support
and appreciate all what you have done for me.”