In May 2007 Frederick complained of some blurring of the vision in his right eye when seen by an Optometrist at a popular high street Optician for his regular eye test. In August 2007 he re took the test and was assured there was no deterioration.
In February 2008 Frederick attended an alternative Optician who referred him to the Opthalmology clinic at a local hospital with raised intraocular pressure in his right eye. He was diagnosed as suffering from glaucoma.
Frederick had suffered a significant loss of vision in his right eye to a level leaving him functionally blind in that eye. He had also lost approximately 20 – 30% of the peripheral vision in his left eye.
It transpired that the intraocular pressure in Frederick’s right eye had been significantly raised above normal upper limits during the May and August examinations and that this should have prompted a referral to hospital at this time allowing his condition to be diagnosed and treated allowing him to maintain normal visual acuity in the right eye and avoiding any significant loss of his peripheral visual field in his left eye.
Court proceedings were started and Solicitors acting for the high street Optician quickly confirmed they would not be defending the claim. Frederick accepted a settlement of £65,000 in damages plus payment of his legal costs.
A Bill is going through Parliament that will withdraw the availability of Legal Aid for victims of medical accidents. It will also reduce the amount of compensation successful claimants receive. The Government believes that these measures will save the tax payer money and curb unmeritorious claims.
In future legal aid will not be available. Practically nowadays only children who have suffered a severe injury, such as oxygen starvation at birth, get legal aid. These are complex expensive cases which are usually strenuously defended. If legal aid is removed, most of these cases will not be pursued – they are far too expensive for the solicitor to fund the investigation on a no win no fee basis.
In future all successful claimants will have about 25% of their compensation deducted to pay legal costs. Currently this burden is on the party that caused the damage i.e. the defendant. It is proposed to transfer this burden to the victim. General damages will increase by 10% to compensate this but however you add up the figures the injured party will still be worse off.
These reforms are not good news for people injured as a result of medical malpractice.
I am delighted to welcome all visitors to our newly re-vamped website. Some of you may be familiar with our old site, which served us well for many years; however we feel that this new website displays features that make it more visually pleasing, informative and easy to navigate than before.
We have retained the important information on this area of law that we wish to pass on to all potential, past and present clients, whilst incorporating new features as follows.
Returning Features:
Introduction to the firm
Profiles of members of the team
News about the firm
Case studies giving examples of past cases
Feedback from clients on the work we have done
New Features
Video providing information on our firm and clinical negligence law in general presented by Hilton Armstrong & Peter Foulkes, Partners in the firm.
A revamped contact page with map location of the office.
A “Frequently Asked Questions” page providing guidance on issues surrounding clinical negligence claims such as how it can be funded, how long a person has to bring a claim and how we go about investigating.
A “News & Views” section incorporating case studies and company news but also including regular updates on items of interest to clients such as changes to the law or their rights.
A handy shortcut menu on the side & a search function in the top corner of each page
The option to leave a comment on most of the video/news or information provided.
The new website finalises our recent re-branding and we feel the personal video, comment and contact features add to our commitment to “personal care for medical claims” for all past, current and future clients. We hope that you find all of the information you require.
We are delighted to congratulate Kathryn Watson on completing her training contract with us and accepting a position as a Newly Qualified Solicitor in our firm from 1st July 2011. She is already a valued member of the team at Armstrong Foulkes and we look forward to following her legal career with great interest.
Pamela was in her seventies when she fell at home and fractured her wrist. She had a cast fitted and was reviewed 6 weeks later when the cast was removed. Her wrist was bent and had healed at 25 degrees. The doctor told her he did not need to re-break it but would refer her for physiotherapy. She felt that the reason the doctor was not doing more was because of her age and that he ignored her request to do whatever was needed to allow her to keep optimum function in the wrist.
She decided to have surgery privately as she leads a very active life and needs good use of her wrist. This cost her over £4,000 and did improve wrist function. However, there is still pain and weakness in the wrist and slight numbness around the thumb.
After court proceedings had been started, solicitors for the hospital accepted that before the wrist was put in a plaster cast, Pamela should have been offered manipulation to reduce the degree of angulation. They also admitted that if her wrist had been manipulated, it would probably have avoided the surgery. It was agreed between the parties that although 50% of her remaining symptoms were due to the corrective surgery, which would not have been necessary if she had been treated properly, the remaining 50% were as a result of the original fracture. As these symptoms would have occurred even with proper treatment, she could not recover compensation for these. Pamela was offered £14,000 which included the cost of the surgery, which she accepted.
Arthur had suffered with Rheumatoid Arthritis in his hands for several years. He was admitted to hospital for a procedure in which some of the diseased joints in his right hand were to be replaced with artificial implants. Arthur was prepared for surgery. He was given a General Anaesthetic and the Surgeon set about making the necessary incisions and preparing the bones in the hand to accept the implants.
It was at this point that the Surgeon realised that not all of the necessary components for the surgery had been ordered. No available implants were to be had for a further two days. As a result, the operation had to be abandoned and Arthur had to wait over two weeks for another operation date.
The hospital agreed that this was unacceptable treatment and paid Arthur compensation of £4,250. In addition, they arranged a more robust system to ensure that the correct implants were ordered in good time and that detailed lists of requirements for each operation were available and checked one week before the operation.
