Tag Archives: doctor negligence

The problems for and with Junior Doctors

The title “Junior doctor” can relate to someone just out of medical school or someone who is as much as 5 years out of medical school.

In many hospitals across the UK you will find very junior doctors covering hospitals, particularly at night, with very little support however the responsibility for clinical decisions will still always lie with senior medical staff.

Having such junior staff in very busy departments such as the Emergency Department (ED, formerly A&E) can present a problem for the hospital but also the patient.  This short article will deal with just a few of the issues arising from junior doctors.

  • Junior doctors can be overly cautious.  Just by the nature of the career they have chosen to follow, we know they are high achievers in life and have so far done very well.  They are terrified of making mistakes and this is likely to happen when they start treating real patients.  Much of the work in ED is making numerous decisions and not making the right one can be a terrifying prospect.
  • Junior doctors can be inclined to inherit another doctor’s thinking rather than apply their own judgement.  This can be a particular problem when they are involved in handovers and at the end of shifts.  This can also be a factor in cases involving recurrent attending patients if the junior doctor does not look beyond what his colleague wrote in the notes a week before and he/she fails to listen to the patient or carer.  This can lead to the correct diagnosis being missed.
  • Junior doctors are overworked particularly during night shifts when they are tired and more likely to make a mistake and there is less supervision.
  • Junior doctors by their nature are very inexperienced and this will be apparent in their judgement.  They will struggle with young children as patients.  Quite often this is because the junior doctors have never been around young babies or infants and in most cases will not have started families themselves.  They also struggle with neurological injuries and issues particularly involving the spinal cord or patients with multiple injuries.  All of this increases the risk of them forgetting/missing something.
  • Junior doctors can be pressured to make unsafe clinical decisions.  In many cases the junior doctor will ask for a speciality review (e.g. surgical review for a patient with suspected appendicitis) or ask for some complex imaging such as an MRI.  However in many cases the junior doctor is unable to assert themselves to get someone to see their patient or to get agreement for a scan to go ahead and they accept what in some cases turns out to be unsafe advice to discharge the patient.

The NHS is attempting to minimise mistakes and provide all staff with more support systems and standard operating systems.  For example, many hospitals/Trusts now have specialist teams set up to deal with patients suffering from life threatening and changing conditions such as strokes, sepsis or cardiac arrests.  They are trying to ensure that there is more senior review available and they continue to introduce safety netting policies to cover a range of situations however calamitous mistakes continue to be made and in some cases the mistake was avoidable.

If you are concerned about any treatment or care you have had which you believe has caused you to suffer an injury, please do not hesitate to contact us and speak to one of our specialist solicitors.

Ashleigh Holt – May 2018

Surveillance and Fundamental Dishonesty

Defendants in clinical negligence cases often challenge the claims we put forward on behalf of our clients, and in particular, assert that the injury has had a more minimal effect than we have alleged.  They can do this on the basis of their medical evidence (from the expert doctors they have instructed to assist them with the case) but also by surveillance.

A Defendant is entitled to investigate whether what a Claimant says about of the effect of their injuries upon their lifestyle is genuine.  Whilst they are entitled to do this in any case, in practice, they mainly tend to do it only when a person is severely disabled and their day to day activities are limited as a result.

In our experience there are 2 main ways in which they do this:

  1. Looking at a person’s social media presence, i.e. Facebook, Instagram, Twitter etc. A Defendant can ask a Judge to order a Claimant to provide copies of their posts, photographs etc. for them to consider.
  1. If we claim that a person is housebound, has problems walking, getting in and out of cars or needs help with shopping or doing things outside of the home, the Defendant may check to see if this is genuine. This could involve filming that person, for example, driving, attending the supermarket or at public events to see if the injuries and limitations are consistent what we have claimed.

The benefit to a Defendant if they can show a Claimant is not as badly affected as alleged is twofold.  Firstly, it will help them prove that the level of damages the Claimant is due is less.  Secondly, and more importantly, the Court has power to dismiss the entirety of a claim if it is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the Claimant has been “fundamentally dishonest” in relation to any aspect of the claim.

This is nothing to worry about and certainly not a reason to avoid looking into bringing a medical negligence claim if you think you may have received substandard treatment.  The vast majority of Claimants are honest and accurately report their symptoms and the effect any injury has had on them.  However, it is something to bear in mind if you are bringing a claim, especially if you are thinking of trying things you previously thought impossible.  In this situation, we would ask that you keep us informed so we can make sure that the Defendant and our experts are aware of it. If you find these changes last for just a short period of time, it will prevent a situation where the Defendant believes they have evidence that you are more able than we have previously stated.

If you would like to discuss this further or think you may have a claim for medical negligence and would like some advice from one of our solicitors, please contact us on 01642 231110.

Kathryn Watson – April 2018

Failure to monitor fetal heart beat leads to stillbirth

Mrs P was 38 weeks pregnant with her second child, a daughter, when she became concerned that she that she had not felt the baby move.  She was referred to hospital by her community midwife and a Consultant Obstetrician admitted her to hospital for the her labour to be induced.  This decision was reversed later the same day by a locum Registrar and Mrs P was discharged.  During the night Mrs P felt her baby move but the movements then stopped and by the following morning Mrs P was feeling contractions.  She was admitted to the delivery suite at the hospital after lunch again with a view that her labour would be induced.

At 18.30 pm the continuous monitoring of Mrs P’s baby was stopped.  Mrs P was moved to a ward later that night and was told that her labour would not be induced until the next morning.  Mrs P’s baby was not monitored again until 9.25 am the following day but the midwife was unable to locate the heartbeat and an ultrasound scan confirmed that Mrs P’s daughter had died.

Mrs P gave birth later that day.  Mr and Mrs P thought their daughter looked perfect.  They were able to dress and bathe her.  At their request no post mortem was carried out and no cause for her death was identified.  Mrs P subsequently suffered a major depression and required counselling.

We were instructed to investigate the standard of care Mrs P had received.  However, in this instance the hospital also commenced early investigations.  An early Letter of Claim to the Trust was following by a full admission of liability in failing to monitor Mrs P’s baby after 18.30 and deliver her earlier so that she would have survived.  Despite the early admission NHS Resolution acting on behalf of the Trust failed to make reasonable offers of compensation in settlement and refused to negotiate so we were forced to start court proceedings.  However, solicitors instructed to act for the Trust made an increased offer which was accepted by Mrs P.

The compensation awarded to Mrs P was made up of a sum for her pain, suffering and loss of amenity but was also to compensate her for past and future financial losses she had and would incur such as the cost of a layette which is the items a new baby needs such as vests and bottles and future counselling.

What we were unable to recover for Mrs P is a statutory bereavement award (currently set at £12,980) because her daughter was not been born alive however the Court regularly awards a sum “equivalent” to a bereavement award and our assessment of the damages recovered in this case included this and ultimately was not challenged by the Defendant.

No amount of compensation can replace what this family lost but in pursuing this claim Mrs P has ensured that she is able to keep her daughter’s memory alive.

A stillbirth is an unimaginable and devastating outcome of what should be the happiest of times.  If you have suffered an injury as a result of treatment given to you during your pregnancy or the delivery of your child, please contact us to discuss this further.

Ashleigh Holt – March 2018

Another excellent rating for the Firm – Band 1 in Chambers & Partners!

I am delighted to announce that following on from our Tier 1 rating in Legal 500 (see article 01/11/2017) we have been again awarded the highest rating (Band 1) for excellence in clinical negligence work in the Teesside area. This rating is given by a prestigious guide to UK Lawyers entitled “Chambers & Partners” where we are described as a “Specialist boutique with a superb reputation for handling complex clinical negligence claims”. These ratings are reviewed annually and based on interviews with our clients and barristers with whom we work and the feedback they give on our solicitors and the firm in general.

Our 3 partners were singled out for praise for their work, Hilton Armstrong is described as “very friendly, very approachable; he’s lovely to deal with”, Joanne Davies (neé Dennison) is “very reliable, very bright and always gives me the information I need” and Ashleigh Holt is praised for the way she handles a range of complex clinical negligence matters.

One client stated “They have made it very easy for me, and have taken a lot of stress away”. This alone makes us feel we are doing our job well as our priority is always our clients and ensuring that what can be a difficult experience is as stress free as possible. We are, however, equally proud when recognised for the hard work we do on our clients’ behalf and this ranking is a reflection of the dedication of the entire team from our admin staff to the Partners. If you would like any information on this please do not hesitate to contact us or read the review for yourself using the link below.

https://www.chambersandpartners.com/16346/140/editorial/1/1

Joanne Davies (neé Dennison) – March 2018

Bereavement Damages – a long overdue change on its way?

There is a fixed amount of money that is awarded to certain close relatives when someone dies in an accident.  It applies to medical claims and other accidents when someone else is proved to be at fault.  The sum is fixed by Parliament and is currently £12,980 and is called a ‘bereavement award’.  It is Parliament’s financial assessment of the amount of money needed to compensate you for your grief and suffering from losing a loved one.

However, injustices have arisen (not only because the amount is small) but also because the people who are entitled to claim is limited by Parliament in the Fatal Accidents Act 1976.  Surviving spouses (or civil partners) and the parents of children under 18 years of age are the only two groups who are eligible.  If you are cohabitees or a parent of a child over the age of 18 you are not entitled.  As about 17% of couples now living together are either not married or in a civil partnership it affects a lot of people.

Some of this injustice may be remedied shortly.  A recent Court of Appeal case (Smith –v- Lancashire Teaching Hospitals) has declared that to exclude cohabitees is not compatible with the Human Rights Act 1998.  What does this mean?  Sadly nothing for Miss Smith but there is now a hope that Parliament will look again at its definition of who can claim and extend it to cohabitees.  However, with all things Brexit preoccupying the Government I am not hopeful this will be sorted any time soon.

Hilton Armstrong – December 2017

Legal 500 Tier 1 ranking – We’ve done it again!!

Armstrong Foulkes has proudly retained its Tier 1 ranking in The Legal 500 2017 database of lawyers and solicitors in the UK.  No other firm specialising or working in clinical negligence in the Teesside area has been awarded this accolade and as specialists in this field we are elated that this has come just after celebrating the 25th anniversary of Armstrong Foulkes opening its doors in Middlesbrough.

After interviewing our clients and other legal professionals we work with Armstrong Foulkes LLP is described as having “an unrivalled and enviable reputation in the region of clinical negligence work.”  The three partners in the firm were acknowledged for their efforts in this field.  Joanne Davies is set apart with her “excellent understanding of medical issues and always gets outstanding results”.  Ashleigh Holt is described as “highly efficient” and Hilton Armstrong who leads the firm is “a clever, committed and passionate advocate who achieves excellent results in an unfussy manner”.

Joanne Davies said “We are proud and delighted that the firm has been recognised for the specialist service we provide in this type of claim and particularly pleased that the dedication of our solicitors on behalf of our clients has been both highlighted and praised.”

Ashleigh Holt – November 2017

Our 25th anniversary!

On 1 October 1992, Hilton Armstrong and Peter Foulkes set up Armstrong Foulkes, with their intention being to set up a firm of solicitors specialising in clinical negligence and personal injury.  At the time, there were no other firms in the area that specialised in clinical negligence and we were the first firm in Teesside to have a legal aid contract for clinical negligence and the only one to have such a contract for many years.

Peter retired on 1 October 2013 when Joanne Davies and Ashleigh Holt became partners and Armstrong Foulkes became Armstrong Foulkes LLP, a limited liability partnership.

Throughout the past 25 years, the firm has gone from strength to strength and is nationally recognised as being a leading clinical negligence firm.  We are described in Chambers and Partners, which ranks lawyers worldwide, as a “specialist boutique with a superb reputation for handling complex clinical negligence claims. Advises and represents clients on a wide range of matters, including child brain injury and surgical negligence cases, and also handles claims concerning delayed diagnoses.”  The top firms are ranked from Band 1 to 6 (with 1 being the highest ranking achievable) and we are pleased that we continue to hold a Band 1 ranking and have done for many years now.

The firm now comprises 5 fee earners – Hilton, Joanne and Ashleigh (the partners) and Kathryn and Dan (solicitors).  We also have 4 support staff – Liz (who has been with the firm since the outset), Caroline, Jan and Honor.

Hilton says specialising in clinical negligence suits his personality as it requires great attention to detail.  This is a trait of his that is recognised in Chambers and Partners as he is noted to be “technically very competent, very thorough and will go the extra distance to investigate a case to see if there is something in it.”  As well as ranking firms of solicitors, Chambers and Partners also ranks the top solicitors in the country and Hilton continues to hold a Band 1 ranking.  Ashleigh and Joanne are also recommended.

The partners have yet to decide how we are going to celebrate the 25 year milestone but we have been assured it will be something to look forward to!  In the meantime, in true Armstrong Foulkes style, we have celebrated with cake!

cake

If you would like to speak to one of our solicitors for advice about a potential clinical negligence claim, please telephone us on 01642 231110.

Kathryn Watson, October 2017

Surgery abandoned due to a lack of beds

Due to abdominal pain Mr M was scheduled to have his gall bladder removed at the James Cook University Hospital in early 2015. It was intended that this procedure would be “keyhole” surgery with the option to convert to open surgery should this become necessary. If the “keyhole” surgery was successful then Mr M would be treated as a day case and allowed home the same day, if an open procedure (traditional “non-keyhole” surgery) was required then he would need to be kept in hospital overnight and so would need an inpatient bed.

Mr M attended James Cook University hospital as arranged and was taken down for surgery shortly after. Before he was put under general anaesthetic there was some concern as there were no inpatient beds available, but Mr M was nevertheless put to sleep and his surgery was started. It quickly became apparent that Mr M would in fact require the open version of the surgery and so needed an inpatient bed. As no beds were available Mr M’s surgery had to be abandoned.

When Mr M came round after his surgery he was told what happened and sent home. Mr M suffered cuts and bruising where his surgery had been started and was in pain for almost 2 weeks, during which time he was unable to work.

A few weeks after the abandoned surgery Mr M returned to the James Cook University Hospital and his gall bladder was removed successfully by open surgery.

Although Mr M was always going to need the open version of the surgery we were able to argue that his initial surgery should not have been started when no inpatient beds were available. Although it was intended that the procedure would be tried as “keyhole” surgery the need to convert to open surgery was always a possibility. Due to the hospital’s failure to make sure a bed would be available if he needed it prior to the surgery Mr M received an unnecessary general anaesthetic and suffered two painful cuts.

After coming to see us we were quickly able to put the case to the hospital, who admitted they were at fault straight away. After a short negotiation Mr M agreed to settle the claim for £3,500, less than a year after we took the case on. Thanks to an early admission of liability (legal blame) by the hospital we were able to settle this claim quickly and ensured that Mr M received the compensation he was due as early as possible.

While not all cases will proceed as quickly as this Armstrong Foulkes’ years of specialist experience working exclusively in medical negligence ensures that we are always in a position to give you the best possible advice in relation to your claim.

Dan Richardson, October 2017

Fixing the amount of Costs in Clinical Negligence Claims

Our solicitors and indeed the profession have awaited with some dread Lord Justice Jackson’s review of costs in civil matters which includes clinical negligence claims. It was suggested that there should be a fixed amount of costs allowed for claims up to a certain value, whether it is a contract dispute, a neighbour dispute or a complex clinical negligence claim. This was worrying because this took no account of the very individual nature of clinical negligence claims, where each claim, like each person is very different. Two people could, for example, have suffered the same mistake or be misdiagnosed with the same condition but the reasons for this, the investigation and the effect on them can be completely different needing an individual approach to each claim. It was always our view that a “one size fits all” system would only lead to people being denied the thorough investigation they deserve.

The costs paid by the defendant that the media and the NHS repeatedly complain are too high and who portray solicitors as “bleeding the NHS dry” are not a “windfall” for solicitors as has been claimed. They include the costs of multiple medical experts whose involvement can in large value cases cost tens of thousands of pounds and the fees for specialist barristers to advise on the case and represent the Claimant at Court. Cases proceeding to Trial involve solicitors’ costs for work over generally 3-6 years, some even longer. Limiting costs available to pursue a claim can, in our opinion, only result eventually in being unable to properly investigate a claim. Being denied the opportunity to fully investigate and subsequently being denied justice could result in the loss of the much needed compensation that allows those injured to live with the effects of the negligence and improve their life.

Lord Justice Jackson’s review, published in July, has recommended many changes and has thankfully rejected a “one size fits all” system. However the most significant proposal for the work we do is to suggest limiting the level of costs for Clinical Negligence work in cases with a value of up to £25,000. At each stage in the case there will be a fixed amount of costs available. This is not ideal and will include cases which are very complex and emotional to investigate but lower in value such as errors causing the deaths of children. It remains to be seen how or when this process will be finalised and there is a lot more work to be done before then but it is clear there will be implementation in the future of a fixed amount of costs to some clinical negligence cases.

Here at Armstrong Foulkes our solicitors are always available to discuss a potential case and advise you of your options irrespective of the value or level of injury. Please do not hesitate to contact us for a free no-obligation chat on 01642 231110.

Joanne Davies – September 2017

Pressure sores whilst in intensive care

Mrs J was admitted to hospital in October 2012 with sepsis and multi organ failure and she was not expected to survive.  She required admission to the intensive care unit where she remained for 2 months, for much of which she was in a coma.  Fortunately, she pulled through but when she regained consciousness, she was told she was paraplegic as a result of her condition and had developed pressure sores to her sacrum, buttock and heel which took a long time to heal.

It was the evidence of nursing expert that the pressure sores developed because of the hospital’s failure to reposition her whilst she was so unwell.  The hospital claimed that she was too unwell to be moved and if they had tried to reposition her, she probably would have died.  However, our expert was of the opinion that if this was the case, she should have been nursed on a specialist bed and mattress which would have turned her and the pressure injuries would have been prevented.

The hospital defended this case throughout and only accepted our offer of settlement for a 5 figure sum a few weeks before Trial.  The claim was limited to damages for the pain and suffering Mrs J experienced as all of the expenses she had would have been incurred in any event as a result of her paraplegia and not because of any negligence on the part of the hospital.

Kathryn Watson, August 2017

Wrongful removal of a testicle

Kevin was in his mid fifties, single, and had a small benign cyst on his left testicle.  He had put up with it for a number of years.  Eventually he was advised that he should have it (the cyst!) removed.  Tests had confirmed that there was no cancer.  He received assurances that this was all that was to happen.  He went to hospital for what he expected to be a normal procedure for removal of this benign cyst.

After the operation the Consultant was doing his ward round with the trainees.  He announced to his colleague and Kevin that everything had gone to plan but to be safe he had removed the testicle, not just the cyst.  At first Kevin thought he hadn’t heard him correctly.  To say Kevin was angry was an understatement – he was absolutely furious.  Loss of his testicle was something he had wanted to avoid, and assured would not happen.

He came to see us about a claim.  The claim was pursued on a ‘no win no fee’ basis.  Within 8 months and shortly after starting court proceedings we secured a settlement of £15,000 plus payment of legal costs.  In monetary terms this the going rate for a loss of a testicle case as there were no complications or future concerns.

Hilton Armstrong – June 2017

Armstrong Foulkes raises money for local centre for the blind

We are pleased to announce that over the last year Armstrong Foulkes has raised over £950 for a local charity, Teesside and District Society for the Blind.  In addition to our “Trick or Treat Tombola” at Halloween and regular “dress down days” we’ve received significant contributions from staff, clients and friends of Armstrong Foulkes.  Centre Manager, Rona Ashton thanked us for our tremendous effort and explained “the money raised will be put towards our costs for providing social activities for the blind and partially sighted people living in the Teesside area.”

The charity was brought to our attention by one of our client’s who suffered sudden blindness as a result of negligent medical treatment.  In 2010 she developed a recurrence of a condition she had suffered 20 years previously, benign intracranial hypertension. This can cause damage to the optic nerves and consequently visual problems.  A simple lumbar puncture would have revealed this and surgery would have halted the progression of her condition but the diagnosis was missed for over 1 year by which time, surgery was too late and our client lost her sight in her mid 60s.

The Blind Centre made a huge difference to our client in that she was able to meet and socialise with people who were similarly affected.  She enjoys regular days out and even holidays with the centre.  She said in the early days it gave her a reason to get up in the morning.  If you are interested in learning more about the charity please look at their website at www.teessideblind.co.uk

Injuries which arise from negligent medical treatment can be devastating and life changing.  If you have suffered physically or psychologically as a result of poor medical treatment, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Ashleigh Holt – June 2017

How to complain about the medical treatment you have received

Many people contact us because they would like to complain about the medical treatment they have received but are unsure how to go about it.  Alternatively, they may not wish to complain but would like more information or answers to questions they have not had the opportunity of asking or have done so and have not received adequate answers.

You are entitled to complain/ask questions about the treatment you have received.  We advise you send a letter to the Chief Executive of the Trust if the treatment was provided by a hospital or district nurse and to the Practice Manager of your GP practice if it was provided by a GP or practice nurse.  Complaints should normally be made within 12 months of an incident or of the matter coming to your attention.  However, sometimes people understandably don’t feel up to making a complaint so soon after, particularly following a bereavement or serious injury.  If more than 12 months have passed since the subject of your complaint, it may be useful to explain in your letter why you are only able to write the letter now and this may encourage the provider of the treatment to investigate your complaint in any event.

The letter of complaint should set out briefly the background to your complaint and then we recommend you make a list of numbered questions that you would like answering.  This will then enable the investigator of your complaint to respond to each question in turn.  Upon receipt of the complaint, the provider should acknowledge and initiate an investigation.  Once their investigation is complete, which may take some time if it is a complex matter, they will either provide you with a written response or invite you to attend a meeting to discuss the matter further.  Whether you choose to attend the meeting or not is entirely up to you and what you feel comfortable with.  If you do go to a meeting, we advise you to ask for minutes or a recording of the meeting.

Once you have the provider’s response to your complaint, you are entitled to ask further questions if you think the response fails to address all the issues.  If you are not happy with the way the complaint has been dealt with, you can take your complaint to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, which is independent of the NHS.  They will then look into the matter further for you.

Solicitors are unable to get involved with the complaints process as it is separate from a legal claim.  However, if you suspect you or a family member has been injured as a result of medical negligence and you have made a complaint and would like to know what to do next, or if you would like advice before making a complaint, please do not hesitate to contact us on 01642 231110 and one of our solicitors will be happy to talk to you and provide advice on how best to proceed.

Kathryn Watson – May 2017

Delays during labour lead to hysterectomy for first time mum

Miss G, aged 22, was admitted to hospital to give birth to her first baby.  Her labour was slow and she was given a drug called Syntocinon to try and progress the labour but this failed.  Despite being fully dilated the baby’s head had not descended.  The delivery team discussed using forceps but it was eventually decided that they would need to proceed to an emergency Caesarean Section.  Miss G was delivered of a healthy baby boy but within 3 hours of her son being born she was rushed back to theatre.  Her heart rate was excessively fast, her blood pressure was low, her abdomen was distended and she was bleeding into a drain which had been placed during the earlier procedure.  Miss G required open surgery that evening.  She was found to be bleeding from an extension of the uterine incision which had not been repaired at the time of the Caesarean Section.  This was repaired and the bleeding stopped but over the next few days she remained very unwell and she was commenced on antibiotic therapy.

A week after her son was born Miss G required a second open surgery as a bowel injury was suspected.  No injury to the bowel was identified but the following day she was taken to theatre again for a third open surgery where it was found that her uterus was necrotic.  The only solution was a hysterectomy following which she was transferred to intensive care.

Miss G was discharged from hospital after 3 weeks but required a readmission almost immediately when she haemorrhaged and required treatment for a pseudo aneurysm.  She was an inpatient for a further 2 weeks and then discharged home.  The significant surgical wounds to Mrs G’s abdomen were slow to heal and a year after her son was born she required further surgery to repair a hernia and revise her scarring.

We investigated and pursued a claim for Miss G arising out of the long term, life changing injuries she had suffered and the NHS Litigation Authority accepted on behalf of the Trust which managed the hospital that it was negligent to have delayed in not carrying out a Caesarean Section earlier.  By leaving it so late, it made the operation more complex and it was also negligent to fail to repair the extension of the uterine incision.  These failures led to Miss G’s uterus becoming so severely infected that it had to be removed.  The outcome of this was that while she could have further biological children as her ovaries had been retained, she would not be able to carry them without a womb and she would therefore need medical assistance by way of IVF and a surrogate.

The investigation into the extent of Miss G’s injuries was lengthy.  In addition to long term physical injuries, Miss G suffered depression and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and required medication and therapy.  From her son being born he was cared for almost entirely by his grandparents and aunt.  Miss G missed the first 6 – 8 weeks of his life.  Physically she recovered to return to work 8 months after her son’s birth to her job in a care home but she was unable to cope, mentally and physically,  with the type of work and she found sedentary work in an office.

The solicitors acting on behalf of the NHS made a low offer in the first instance and it became necessary to start court proceedings as an agreement could not be otherwise reached.  The claim eventually settled only 3 months before a trial was set to take place in the High Court at Newcastle upon Tyne District Registry.  In addition to obtaining compensation for her physical and psychiatric injuries, we were able to recover compensation which would allow Miss G to pay for IVF and the costs and expenses associated with having a surrogate carry  at least 2 future children for her.  The claim settled for over £200,000.

Compensation cannot replace what Miss G lost on what should have been one of the happiest days of her life.  However, by pursuing a claim she has secured the ability to extend her family as she had always planned to.

If you have been affected by medical treatment in a similar way or know someone who has suffered like Miss G has please do not hesitate to get in touch.  We are dedicated to helping patients injured through negligence recover compensation and we are happy to discuss your experiences with you and help where we can.

Ashleigh Holt – March 2017

Your rights to access medical records

As part of a clinical negligence claim we often obtain copies of medical records during our initial investigations. Many people, however, come to us for advice on obtaining their medical records independently and this article will provide some guidance as to how this can be done.

There are two acts under which medical records can be obtained, for living patients applications should be made under the Data Protection Act 1998 and if the patient has passed away then certain people can apply for their records under the Access to Health Records Act 1990.

Data Protection Act 1998

Under the Data Protection Act 1998 patients have the right to see or obtain copies of their own medical records. You are not required to provide a reason why you want copies of your medical records. Requests for records should be addressed to the records manager at the relevant GP surgery or hospital and make it clear that the request is under the Data Protection Act 1998.

Once the request is received the healthcare provider will contact you outlining their fees for providing copies of the records. They may not charge you any fee at all, but if they do the amount they are entitled to charge differs depending on how the records are held (electronically, on paper or a combination of the two) and when they were last added to but cannot exceed £50 and is often much less than this. Once they receive payment the healthcare provider has 40 days to provide you with copies of your records. If you don’t receive them within this time you should chase them and remind them this is a breach of their duty under the Data Protection Regulations 2000.

Access to Health Records Act 1990

The Access to Health Records Act 1990 allows certain people, typically family or Personal Representatives of the deceased’s estate or any other person who may have a claim arising from the death, to access the records of patients who have passed away. If it is hospital records that are required then the application process is similar to an application under the Data Protection Act, a request should be made in writing to the records manager at the hospital where the treatment was received, making it clear that the application is under the Access to Health Records Act 1990. You may be asked to provide proof of your identity and relationship with the deceased to ensure you are entitled to access the requested records.

When a patient dies their GP records are typically transferred to be stored centrally by an NHS body called Primary Care Support England, the GP surgery will be able to advise you whether this has happened.  The Primary Care Support England website (http://pcse.england.nhs.uk) provides a detailed application form needed to obtain a deceased patient’s GP records.

To simply view the records under the Access to Health Records Act a fee of £10 can be charged. If copies of the records are required then they are entitled to charge a further fee for photocopying and postage. Unlike a request under the Data Protection Act these charges are not subject to any upper limit.

If after you have obtained your records you have any questions or you would like advice on any possible claim please do not hesitate to contact us and one of our solicitors would be happy to provide you with advice and guide you through your options.

Dan Richardson – March 2017

Why choose a specialist?

If you are looking for a Solicitor to handle your medical claim, then you will probably do the following:

  1. Search the internet.
  2. See an advert in your local paper or on TV.
  3. Listen to a friend, relation or colleague.
  4. Contact your family Solicitor.

Nowadays, lots of Solicitors are doing Clinical Negligence work but that does not mean they are specialists.  They are turning their hand to it because they are short of work.  Their adverts are very good and they will promise you the world: e.g. “we expect to settle your claim within 6 to 12 months” or “we have successfully recovered compensation for thousands of injured people” and so on.  This is all rubbish.

So, why should you go to a specialist like us?  There is only one reason:

Would you be happy if a Neurosurgeon was going to remove your appendix, or if an Orthopaedic Surgeon operated on your brain?  Both are very competent in their own field but you would be a fool to trust them if they strayed out of their area of expertise – so why do it with your medical claim?

We only deal with medical claims for injured people on Teesside and in the North East.  We have years of experience which enable us to get you the best result for you, both in terms of compensation and answers.

We have national recognition and are listed in Chambers and The Legal 500:

Ring us today at 01642 231110 and we will tell you if you have a claim worth pursuing.  You will speak to an experienced Solicitor who will give you straightforward answers.

Hilton Armstrong – February 2017

Difficulties facing Claimants

Clinical negligence claims are receiving increasing attention by the government.  Claimants and their solicitors are being criticised for the perceived disproportionality between the amount of compensation the Claimant recovers and the legal costs which have to be spent in order to get that compensation.

In an attempt to keep Claimants’ costs to a minimum, in recent years many changes have been made to the way claims are funded and conducted.  These changes include:

  • Limiting the type of case for which Legal Aid is available
  • Making the Claimant pay some of the legal costs out of their compensation.
  • Setting budgets for how much each side is allowed to spend on investigating and running the
  • Setting a new test of proportionality so that a Judge can disallow or reduce costs even if they were reasonably and necessarily incurred.

The NHS Litigation Authority, who deals with all clinical negligence claims against NHS Trusts, has recently published their annual report for 2015/16.  Criticism for the legal costs of bringing such claims is a continuing theme throughout the report.  The Chief Executive states that “the increasing disproportion in claimant legal costs and examples of excessive costs being claimed are highlighted in last year’s annual report and that trend continues this year” and that this is “against a background of high claims volumes including high numbers of claims being brought where there was no negligence.”  This latter statement is misleading as figures in the report indicate that Claimants were successful in over 70% of the clinical negligence claims closed in the past year.  The report also confirms that the number of clinical negligence claims reported each year has been steadily falling since 2013/2014.

Despite all the criticism regarding the costs of bringing clinical negligence claims, little mention seems to have been made as to why the costs are increasing.  No mention is made of how regularly the NHS Litigation Authority denies liability at first but then goes on to settle the claim after much additional work has had to be done thereby increasing the costs.  All of this drags claims out and increases costs unnecessarily.

Due to the changes that have been made to the way these claims are to be pursued, the further changes that are proposed (including introducing fixed fees for claims with a value up to £250,000) and the difficulties Claimants are faced with in bringing their claims, it is important to instruct a solicitor who is experienced in clinical negligence claims.  Here at Armstrong Foulkes, we have specialised in clinical negligence for 24 years.  Clinical negligence claims take up 100% of our workload.  It is all we do here.  If you think you may have suffered as a result of medical or dental negligence and would like some advice, please contact us on 01642 231110 and one of our solicitors will be happy to talk to you about your potential claim.

Kathryn Watson – September 2016

What losses and expenses can we recover in your claim?

A question we are often asked is “what financial losses can I recover?” In English law compensation is broadly separated into General Damages (those relating to the pain, suffering and impact of the injury itself) and Special Damages (specific, identifiable expenses incurred as a result of the injury or which will be incurred in the future).

Putting a value on general damages is not an easy task; many factors need to be taken into account such as the duration of the injury, the degree of pain that you suffered and what impact this has had on your life. To guide our assessment of general damages we look to previous cases and consider the amounts awarded. As no two medical negligence cases are alike it is often not possible to find directly comparable cases and our assessment needs to take into account the unique facts of every specific case, identifying the key differences between cases and applying our experience to understand how this affects the value of the claim.

The other element to make up the compensation you are awarded is special damage, i.e. those financial losses and expenses you have incurred as a result of your injury. These could, amongst many other things, be a loss of earnings resulting from time taken off work, travelling expenses for hospital appointments which would not otherwise have been required, prescription charges and the cost of any equipment bought to assist you in adapting to your new situation. A claim can also be made for the time spend caring for you, even if this care was provided by a friend or family member who was not paid. Another common special damage we recover is the costs of future treatment, which can have a huge impact in terms of your recovery.

The special damages we seek to recover can vary greatly from case to case and depend on the specific needs and losses of the client. In the past, for example, we have been successful in recovering the costs of pain management courses to ensure our clients have the best possible support during their recovery. In cases where a client’s fertility has been affected we have also been able to recover the costs associated with IVF and surrogacy.

It is important to keep a record of any costs incurred (and ideally keep any receipts) as special damages can dramatically affect the potential value of a claim.

The years of specialist experience at Armstrong Foulkes ensure that we can always seek to recover the maximum compensation for you, supporting you as you recover from you injuries and ensuring you are not left out of pocket by the negligence of medical professionals.

Dan Richardson – July 2016

Care Home Neglect

Mr G suffered with Alzheimer’s disease. Although his family were initially able to manage him at home, in the middle of 2013 they made a difficult decision to move him into a care home on the basis that the Managers of the home were able to assure his family that as specialists in dementia care the home would be able to cope with his needs including occasionally challenging behaviour.

On admission Mr G was clean and well-presented but over the first few weeks and months he appeared progressively more and more dirty and dishevelled and his family began to have concerns regarding the care he was receiving, and particularly whether Mr G was being restrained and whether appropriate force was being used when this was necessary.

Despite previously having had little difficulty walking Mr G soon appeared to be struggling to walk. After speaking with the care home staff it became apparent that the care home’s chiropodist was refusing to treat him and the care home had failed to arrange an alternative. When the family took Mr G to see his old chiropodist it was noted that he was wearing socks 4 sizes too small, and they must not have been removed for some time as his skin appeared to have begun to grow through them.

In late 2013 Mr G’s family arranged for him to move to a different care home. By this time he was also doubly incontinent and had sores on his buttocks.  Thankfully the new placement provided the care and support that Mr G  needed and he went on to make a good recovery to the relief of his family.

We brought a claim against the operator of Mr G’s initial care home for failing to adequately care for Mr G. The care home quickly admitted that it had not been a suitable placement for Mr G in the first place, that the staff were not adequately trained and that the level of care provided  had been substandard. After negotiations Mr G’s claim was settled for £5,500, £2,000 of which was paid to his family to be used to meet his immediate needs. The remaining £2,500 was paid into Court to be used for Mr G’s benefit in the future.

Dan Richardson – June 2016

Claimants Travel Expenses

Can a Claimant recover his expenses for attending a medical expert or visiting his lawyer?

If the other side ask you to attend for a medical examination by their own doctor then you will be able to recover your travel and other expenses (lost earnings, food etc.) from them. They should pay these within 28 days of the examination.

  • If you have to see a doctor for a report that your own Solicitor needs then the position is more complicated. It is usual for your Solicitor to reimburse your expenses in attending if you can give him the receipts. Sometimes if the expenses are high, for example you have to travel to London then he may give you some money beforehand if you cannot afford to pay yourself. The difficulty arises when you try to claim these expenses from the other side if you win your case.   The Defendants regularly object to paying them.
  • The way forward in this scenario is for your Solicitor to claim these expenses in your case against the Defendant. However, this means that there has to be a deduction from your compensation to reimburse the Solicitor for what he has paid to you. If that didn’t happen you would be paid twice, once by the Solicitor and once by the other side in your compensation.
  • You cannot claim your expenses in going to see your Solicitor. This is because those costs are considered to be the normal costs of being a litigant and therefore not recoverable.

Hilton Armstrong – June 2016

Armstrong Foulkes raises over £1,000 for Middlesbrough MS charity

After handing over all of the money we raised in the last year to The Middlesbrough MS Therapy Centre I can confirm that Armstrong Foulkes raised a total of £1,142.37.  If you have been following our endeavours you will see that we got into the Wimbledon spirit by selling strawberries and cream, we had a Christmas Jumper day and we had a week of Easter related fund raising activities including a “name the bunny” game, a tombola and cake stall all of which were kindly organised and run by our staff.  The funds raised from these events have been topped up with further money raised throughout the year from dress down days and kind donations from our staff, clients and friends of Armstrong Foulkes.

Alan Riddiough, Centre Manager told us “It is increasingly more difficult to obtain large donations these days and your efforts are very much appreciated.  The Charity provides Oxygen Therapy, Physiotherapy, Reflexology, and various other treatments to M.S. sufferers at our Therapy Centre. All monies raised goes to help and support sufferers of Multiple Sclerosis.”

This year we asked our clients to help us again pick a local charity we can help and I am pleased to announce that this year Armstrong Foulkes will be supporting Teesside & District Society for the Blind, a small independent charity assisting over 2,000 local blind and partially sighted people in the Teesside and surrounding areas and we can’t wait to get started!

If you are interested in the work that either charity does or you would like to make a donation please visit the websites at www.middlesbroughtherapy.org and www.teessideblind.co.uk

Ashleigh Holt – May 2016

Easter Themed Fundraising for the Middlesbrough MS Therapy Centre

Each year at Armstrong Foulkes we choose a local charity to support from nominations made by our clients.  For the past year, we have been supporting the Middlesbrough Multiple Sclerosis Therapy Centre.  For further information about the services they provide, please see their website at www.middlesbroughmstherapy.org

As we have now been supporting this charity for almost a year, the time has come for us to choose a new local charity to support but we wanted to give one final fundraising push in order to raise as much money for the users of the Middlesbrough MS Therapy Centre.  Our Easter related fundraising activities included a “Name The Bunny” competition to win a Hotel Chocolat Easter gift bag, a tombola and a cake and sweet stall.  People were very enthusiastic with their involvement and very generous with their donations (although one did want to check before buying a chocolate cornflake cake that we had used Kellogg’s cornflakes!).  In total from this event alone  we raised over £230.

DSC_0148

 

010  DSC_0149  DSC_0144

021

The Middlesbrough MS Therapy Centre will shortly let us know how much we have raised in total over the past year so watch this space.  For the next 12 months, we will be supporting Teesside & District Society for the Blind.  This charity was nominated by one of our clients who lost her sight in 2011 as a result of medical negligence.  She attends the centre 3 times a week and it has been a huge support to her over the recent years.  If you would like more information on this charity, please visit their website at www.teessideblind.co.uk

Kathryn Watson – April 2016

 

Meet our newly qualified Assistant Solicitor

After almost 5 years of academic and practical legal training on 01/02/2016 I completed my training contract with Armstrong Foulkes LLP and qualified as a solicitor. As is apparent from our other news and views articles I certainly picked an interesting time to train as a medical negligence solicitor. During my training, changes have been made to the legal aid system, meaning that it is no longer available for the vast majority of medical negligence claims.  The more usual personal injury claims have also become less profitable, meaning that many law firms who have not traditionally undertaken this kind of work are now trying their hand at it.

During this time of change I feel very lucky to have had the opportunity to train and qualify with a specialist firm who exclusively undertake medical negligence work. This has allowed me to focus almost entirely on this complex area of law and while no two claims are alike I have gained experience of a huge variety of medical negligence cases, from substandard dental work to delayed cancer diagnoses, neglect in care homes, the provision of unnecessary or incorrect medication and even surgical fires.

The firm’s dedication to excellence in legal practice and client care, as recognised by our recent Lexcel accreditation, has provided the best possible environment for me to learn and develop as a solicitor. Now that I have finally qualified I look forward to continuing to use my knowledge and training in this specialised area of law to continue Armstrong Foulkes’ track record of excellence in   helping the people of Teesside obtain redress when their medical care goes wrong.

Dan Richardson – February 2016

Armstrong Foulkes LLP secures top accolade from national Law Society

We have recently secured the national Law Society’s legal practice quality mark, Lexcel.

Lexcel is developed specifically for the legal profession.  It is an optional, recognised accreditation scheme for law firms and in-house legal departments which gives assurance that a practice meets high client care and business management.

To gain and retain Lexcel accreditation, practices must undergo a rigorous initial then annual application and assessment process.  This includes conducting background checks and an on-site visit from an independent experienced trained Lexcel assessor.

While we are proud to have secured Lexcel, it is our clients and staff who are the main beneficiaries.  They can be assured that the way we manage the practice has their interests at heart and runs efficiently.  There is a lot of choice in the legal services market, but being Lexcel accredited demonstrates our commitment to client care and best practice.

Jonathan Smithers, President of the Law Society of England and Wales, said: “Gaining and maintaining Lexcel is a considerable feat.  There are many facets of being a Lexcel accredited law firm, including excellence in client care.  A real commitment to customer service in today’s evermore competitive legal services market is vital.”

“By undergoing the rigorous Lexcel application and assessment process, practices can show the positive steps which they are taking to help clients in the increasingly diverse and complicated legal services market.”

“The scheme is a beacon of quality to clients and potential clients alike.”

We join more than 1700 other legal practices in England and Wales with Lexcel accreditation.  The practice management accolade has also gone international, with firms in Scotland, the Middle East, Poland and the Republic of Ireland having gained accreditation.

Hilton Armstrong – 21 January 2016

Set Alight under General Anaesthetic

PH underwent a surgical procedure in March 2014 to reposition a stoma from one side of his abdomen to the other.

It had previously been discovered that PH was allergic to the Betadine usually used to clean and prepare the skin around the surgical site and so the alcohol based Chlorhexidine skin preparation was used instead.

During the surgery, and whilst still under anaesthetic, a swab soaked in Chlorhexidine was left on PH’s abdomen and ignited by a surgical cutting tool. The surgical drapes and his skin caught on fire. The fire was extinguished and the drapes removed. The surgery was completed as planned but PH was left with burns and blistering on his abdomen.

PH remained in hospital for 6 days before being discharged and the burn injury took some time before settling down causing a great deal of unnecessary pain and discomfort for PH. PH has been left with permanent scarring to his abdomen as a result of the burns.

In addition to his physical injuries, unsurprisingly, PH also suffered a psychological reaction as a result of what happened to him whilst under anaesthetic. Thoughts about been set on fire whilst under anaesthetic, how things could have ended a great deal worse and concerns about undergoing any surgical procedures in the future were very distressing. PH has undergone psychological therapy to help him come to terms with the incident.

PH instructed Armstrong Foulkes LLP and compensation was recovered to represent his unnecessary pain and suffering from the burn injuries and the psychological reaction.

Incidents like this are wholly avoidable and by raising a complaint to the hospital and pursuing a claim for personal injuries through Armstrong Foulkes LLP the defendant hospital has now put measures in place to make sure this terrifying incident never happens again.

Andrew Walker – October 2015

Hospital fails to learn from its mistakes

In 2007 Mr L developed pressure sores on both of his heels during a stay in hospital due to him not receiving an appropriate pressure relieving mattress. He instructed us to bring a claim on his behalf and as a result we were successful in recovering a significant amount of compensation.

Although Mr L’s wounds eventually healed he was required to follow a rigorous foot care regime in order to stop further sores developing, due to the increased vulnerability identified by our plastic surgeon.

In 2012 Mr L was readmitted to the same hospital. Mr L had diligently maintained his skin care regime and as a result had suffered no further pressure injuries to his heels. Despite being injury free for around 4 years after only two weeks in the hospital it was noticed that pressure sores had been allowed to develop on both of Mr L’s heels. When his notes were consulted it was quickly apparent that the nursing staff had failed to follow the required skin care regime for the entire time Mr L had been admitted.

Around a month after these second pressure wounds developed Mr L was told that he had contracted MRSA, with the infection having entered his body through the new sores on his heels. As a result he was again admitted to hospital and started on a course of very strong antibiotics with some very unpleasant side effects.

Unfortunately Mr L passed away shortly after this admission for reasons unrelated to the MRSA or his pressure injuries. After his death Mr L’s wife instructed us to bring a claim against the hospital for the suffering her husband had experienced before his death as a result of the pressure sores.

After investigating the claim we formally put our allegations of negligence to the hospital. The hospital admitted that they had been at fault but denied that Mr L’s MRSA was a result of the pressure injury. A very low offer of compensation was made. This was not accepted and as no further appropriate offers were made we issued court proceedings. Shortly after the issue of proceedings, and following further negotiations with the hospital, the case finally settled at an appropriate amount.

This was a very unfortunate case of a man repeatedly let down by the same hospital, and suffering entirely preventable injuries as a result. It is hoped that following Mr L’s second admission better procedures have been put in place at the hospital to minimise the risk of these preventable pressure injuries occurring in the future.

Dan Richardson, April 2015

NHS reports an 18% increase in claims made

So why is there such an increase? It is probably a combination of three factors:

1.     Since the dismantling of the Legal Aid scheme and introduction of ‘no win no fee’ agreements more people can afford to employ a lawyer to investigate a medical mishap.

2.     There was a rush of claims just before April 2013 when a change to the rules meant that the NHS no longer had to pay a success fee if the claim was successful. If clients were signed up after then, the success fee came out of their compensation.

3.     There are many new entrants to the market (Solicitors with little experience of these claims) who are taking on cases and lodging claims that have not been properly investigated.

There was always going to be a blip for reasons ‘1’ and ‘2’ above. That will work its way through. However, the increase attributable to the new entrants is very unpredictable. They have entered the market because the Government has reduced their fee income from Road Traffic Accident work. They see medical claims as a way of replacing their lost income and keeping their paralegals employed.

We have been doing this type of work in the Teesside County Durham and North Yorkshire region for over 20 years and we have not seen the standard of medical practice drop dramatically over this period. Generally the level is good. Mistakes will always happen – it is human error, and no amount of form filling, privatisation or retraining will eradicate these lapses.

It’s the new entrants that everybody should be worried about:

  • The injured patient; because they have put their case in the hands of a non-specialist
  • The NHS; because they have to investigate claims that have not been properly risk assessed.
  • The specialist medical lawyers; because the new entrants are giving us a bad name.

Hilton Armstrong – January 2015

STOP THE PRESS: SHORTLISTED FIRM – LEGAL 500 AWARDS

“The Legal 500” is an independent guide to legal firms and individuals, who are included in the online and hardback directory only if they are recommended for their work in their particular area of law. Each Legal 500 guide released every year is separated into not only areas of law but also into geographical areas. We have been privileged to be included as a leading clinical negligence firm in our area for many years and you may have noticed the “Legal 500 – Leading Firm” logo on our home page confirming this.

We are delighted to announce we have once again been included and in the 2014 Legal 500 Guide we are listed as one of only 3 “Top Tier” Clinical Negligence firms in the North of England. We are proud to be the only clinical negligence firm from Middlesbrough and the surrounding areas to be included in this guide.

For the first time in 2014 this Legal 500 directory decided to make awards highlighting firms and individuals they felt had offered the best service within the previous 12 months. They performed detailed research into the firms taking the views of both barristers and clients with whom they had worked. We are extremely proud to announce that Armstrong Foulkes LLP was shortlisted in the category of Insurance which includes clinical negligence work; we were the only firm from the North to be shortlisted in this national category.

We continue to strive to offer our clients an excellent service and it is always reassuring when this is recognised both by the barristers and other professionals we work with and more importantly as a result of feedback given by our own clients. If you would like any further information please do not hesitate to contact us or to click on the link below:

http://www.legal500.com/c/north/insurance/clinical-negligence-claimant#paragraph_17714

Joanne Dennison

(Proud Editor!)

Don’t Lose Your Benefits

Did you know that if you are in receipt of means tested benefits and you receive an award for compensation then those benefits can be stopped?

To be eligible for certain means tested benefits the Department of Work & Pensions [DWP] will look at how much capital (e.g. savings) you have. A compensation payment will therefore affect your level of capital and if you have over £6,000 those benefits payments may be reduced. If you have over £16,000 those benefits will be stopped completely.

If you fail to tell the DWP about the compensation award then that is Benefit Fraud.

If you are injured, through no fault of your own, and receive compensation of say £20,000 then if you were in receipt of means tested benefits you would no longer be able to claim them. This does not sound fair does it?

Well, fortunately, there is a way to protect your means tested benefits entitlement. By setting up what is called a ‘Personal Injury Trust’. This separates your compensation award from your savings and it is therefore not included in calculating your means tested benefits entitlement. By setting up this Trust you can continue to receive the same means tested benefits that you were before.

So, make sure to tell us if you receive any benefits so that we can put you in touch with people who specialise in setting up Personal Injury Trusts.

Andrew Walker – November 2014

What’s in the box?

For many years Miss S had suffered with hay fever and had a repeat prescription for Cetirizine 10mgs, an antihistamine.  Her GP issued a repeat prescription and she collected this from her pharmacy and started to use it the next day.

The medication was in the same packaging as normal and had the label for Cetirizine 10mgs on the box along with her details.  A few days after starting to take this medication Miss S began to feel unwell and her face became swollen.  Miss S developed a rash all over her body and face which was very itchy and painful. The rash to her face would also bleed causing scarring.

After about 5 days Miss S checked the medication she had been taking and she discovered that the tablets inside the box were in fact Citalopram 10mgs which is an antidepressant.  When she raised this with the pharmacy she was told these tablets were meant to have been given to a 90 year old patient with dementia!

We often receive enquiries where somebody has been prescribed the wrong medication or given somebody else’s prescription by mistake.  If this is spotted early enough and you are fortunate enough not to take the medication then there is no claim in law as it is not enough to simply show that something has gone wrong.  You also need to prove it caused you some injury and loss.

Unfortunately for Miss S as the box and all of the packaging/labelling indicated it was her normal prescription she took the tablets for a number of days and therefore did suffer an allergic reaction as a result of the mis-prescription.

Miss S received an apology from the pharmacy and a settlement to compensate her for the allergic reaction and the period of infection, rashes, itching and facial scarring which she suffered.

Andrew Walker – October 2014