Above Knee Amputation Required as a Result of Failures by GP and Hospital

W, a man in his 70s, sustained an injury to his left shin and toe which had resulted in ulcers. He attended an appointment at his GP practice where he was examined and he was noted to have circulatory compromise, but the GP considered there to be no need to refer him to hospital and the ulcers should instead be regularly dressed by the practice nurse.

W attended the practice regularly, up to 3 times each week, for the ulcers to be dressed. He complained to GPs of worsening pain, particularly at night, for which he was prescribed morphine, but still no referral to hospital was made.

Over 3 months after he initially consulted his GP about his problems, the GP discussed the case with a vascular surgeon who advised urgent referral. Due to the poor condition he was in when seen in the vascular surgery clinic, he was admitted to hospital for immediate treatment. Following an angioplasty, it was decided he required an above knee amputation.

We initially took on the case to investigate a claim against the GP practice arising out of the failure to refer W to hospital earlier. Our experts were supportive of such allegations of negligence. However, during the course of these investigations, our vascular surgery expert made it clear he was of the view that even given the delay in W being seen at hospital, his leg was salvageable and there was no need to perform the amputation. This meant that in addition to a claim against the GP practice, there was also a claim against the hospital.

Liability was initially denied by both Defendants but soon after Court proceedings were issued, a substantial settlement was agreed by both. This provided compensation to W for the pain, suffering and loss of amenity he had experienced and to provide funds for, amongst others, care, aids and equipment, a single storey bungalow and prosthetics.

It is imperative claims such as these are pursued by specialists in clinical negligence. W was an elderly man who did not benefit from the claim until its conclusion in light of the denial of liability. It was therefore essential progress was made as quickly as possible without prejudicing the thoroughness of our investigations.

Kathryn Watson, September 2025