Tag Archives: Ashleigh Holt

Three month delay in diagnosing dislocated shoulder leaves Carer needing care herself

A dislocated shoulder is usually easy to treat and in many cases there is no need for surgery.  While it can take months for the injury to resolve, it rarely results in a significant permanent disability however in the case of Mrs E, a failure to diagnose and treat her dislocated shoulder for over 3 months, has left her with virtually no function in her dominant arm and has rendered her unable to continue to care for her ill husband.

When Mrs E suffered a fall onto her right arm she attended her local hospital.  The entire arm was painful.  An injury to her elbow was ruled out in A&E and an Orthopaedic Surgeon arranged for wrist x-rays but did not arrange for any x-rays of the shoulder despite noting that Mrs E had restricted movement in the shoulder

Mrs E was referred for Physiotherapy but made such little progress that her Physiotherapist referred her for an ultrasound scan which took place over 3 months after Mrs E had first attended hospital.  The scan showed that the shoulder was chronically dislocated shoulder and she now needed surgery to try and resolve it.  Over the next 18 months Mrs E had 4 surgeries, the last being an attempt at a shoulder joint replacement.   All of the surgeries failed and Mrs E was left with a persisting dislocation which was painful and restricted her movement.

At the time of her fall Mrs E had been her husband’s carer but she was unable to continue to provide care to the same level and carers had to be employed to look after her husband and her son had to leave his job to help care for both of his parents.

Mrs E came to us when her first surgery failed and we quickly established with independent medical experts that there was a substandard failure to examine her shoulder and arrange to have it x-rayed.  Had the dislocation been diagnosed shortly after it happened, Mrs E would have had a successful reduction procedure and been able to return to caring for her husband as before within a few weeks.

When we approached the hospital, NHS Resolution who manage claims on behalf of their hospital members, denied liability for Mrs E’s injuries.  They suggested that either she could not have had a dislocated shoulder for over 3 months because it would have been too painful for her to manage for so long or she had had a previous dislocation and not known about it!  This was of course nonsense and court proceedings were issued in the Royal Courts of Justice.  The hospital maintained their Defence of the claim but before we could even proceed to the early step of exchanging witness statements, the hospital made an offer in settlement which led to a series of negotiations settling the claim in Mrs E’s favour some 4 years after her original injury.  Mrs E recovered a 6 figure sum in compensation for her injuries but was left without any option to restore her damaged limb.

The attitude taken by the Defendant’s in this claim is not unusual and it was disappointing that court proceedings needed to be brought before the Defendants would compensate the patient they had injured by failing to carry out an examination of her entire arm.  The allegations we put to the Defendant did not change and the matter could have been resolved earlier to the benefit of both parties. 

When you have independent expert evidence advising you that you did receive a standard of care below that which you should have and that it has caused you an injury, it is important and essential that you have specialist Solicitors you can trust to fight your claim on your behalf and get the justice you deserve.  Armstrong Foulkes are specialists in medical negligence claims and we will take that fight for our clients. 

Ashleigh Holt – June 2020

Hospital tells unsuspecting parents we may have caused brain damage to your baby during birth!

Since 1 April 2017 all NHS Trusts have been required to report to NHS Resolution, the body which has responsibility for managing clinical negligence claims against Trusts, of any incidents of babies born at term (from 37 weeks) with a potentially severe brain injury diagnosed in the first 7 days of life following labour.  These reports have to be made within 30 days under what is known as the Early Notification Scheme.

This relates to any baby who falls into the following categories:

  1. Was diagnosed with grade III hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy (HIE) or
  2. Was therapeutically cooled (active cooling only) or
  3. Had decreased central tone AND was comatose AND had seizures of any kind

It is up to the clinical teams to advise the Trust’s legal department within 14 days of any such cases and then for the legal department to file the report.

NHS Resolution reported on their findings of the first year of the Scheme and published them in September 2019.  This confirmed that over 800 cases were reported of which 746 of which were eligible.  This represented 0.12% of all births.  In February 2020, Armstrong Foulkes LLP were told by a representative for NHS Resolution that there had been 50 admissions of liability to date.  The report concluded that most of the injuries to these babies were caused by problems with fetal monitoring.

What has become apparent is that in many cases, families do not know that their case has been reported or that the treatment they received is being investigated despite each Trust being required to comply with the duty of candour and keep families updated and offer apologies.  In fact, less than half of the 746 cases were reported to the families at the same time as they were to ENS.  Armstrong Foulkes is aware of instances of families only learning of the Early Notification Scheme some two years after the birth of their child.  This is particularly worrying and it is concerning to us that families are not being invited to be part of the investigation process.

The initial risk assessment on whether there is likely to be a finding of negligent care is done by the Trust.  If the Trust assesses a case as ‘likely’ to have involved negligent treatment then NHS Resolution will pass the matter directly to Solicitors who work for the NHS to begin a liability investigation.  Only 9% of cases were reported under ENS as likely in the first year.

For those cases assessed as ‘unlikely’ to have involved negligence or where it is ‘possible’ that there was negligent treatment, then NHS Resolution will do a review.  If a case is re-categorised as ‘likely’ or ‘possible’ it will go to NHS solicitors.  45% of cases were re-categorised in the first year!

Once a decision is made whether to admit liability or not then the decision is communicated to the family by the Trust.  Under the Scheme, families should be advised to get independent advice and should be signposted to Action against Medical Accidents, known as AvMA which is the UK charity for patient safety and justice.  In February 2020 however, a spokesperson for AvMA said that they were not aware that AvMA had been contacted by anyone who had been signposted to them under the scheme.

The aim of the scheme is to identify cases involving negligent care as early as possible and provide answers and support, including financial support to families earlier as cases involving significant brain injuries at birth do take a notoriously long time to investigate and conclude.  However, it is imperative that families are a) involved and b) have access to independent legal advice and representation to ensure that the scheme is transparent and fit for purpose.  This remains to be seen.

As a specialist clinical negligence firm, our concerns are that this scheme does not go far enough and is not being adequately publicised.  Also, we are concerned that families are made aware that they have the option of seeking legal advice irrespective of the scheme and regardless of what the scheme concludes.

You do not need to wait to be contacted by the Trust or someone on their behalf.  If you are concerned about treatment that you or your child received at the time of their birth or any time then you are still entitled to take matters into your own hands and get independent advice from specialist solicitors.  We are here to help.

Ashleigh Holt – May 2020

Cauda Equina Syndrome – a life changing spinal injury

Miss D developed some low back pain which was travelling into her legs in September 2011.  Her GP rightly referred her to Physiotherapy via the local hospital Trust and when her symptoms worsened he made a second referral in October 2011 to the Orthopaedic Spinal Service.  Miss D was seen by a Nurse Practitioner in Orthopaedics and complained of some unusual symptoms in that she could not feel when her bladder was full.  The Nurse Practitioner did not pick up on this but arranged for Miss D to have an MRI scan but this was not to take place for a further 6–7 weeks.

Miss D continued to attend her Physiotherapy sessions.  In November, when she noticed that she was struggling to pass urine and that she had some numbness around her buttocks and genitals, she reported this to her Physiotherapist who sent her urgently to A&E.  Miss D was admitted to hospital with an plan to have an urgent MRI but instead she was discharged home the following day with advice to wait for the already booked scan which was still some 3–4 weeks away.

Miss D eventually had the MRI scan of her spine as planned in the week before Christmas in 2011.  A couple of days later she then received a telephone call from the hospital asking her to come into hospital that evening to undergo urgent surgery.  The scan had shown a disc at the very bottom on her spine was protruding and pressing on the nerves there.  She was suffering from Cauda Equina Syndrome.

Miss D underwent a L5/S1 decompression operation that night.  This halted further damage being caused but could not undo the damage which had already been done to the nerves affecting her urinary, bowel and sexual function.

She was therefore left unable to open her bowels normally or void her bladder without using a catheter up to 7 times a day.  She was left with no sensation in the saddle area, agonizing neuropathic pain, cramping in her toes, depression and fatigue.  Further, as a result of all of these conditions, the low back pain she had previously suffered increased in severity and frequency.

Prior to her developing low back pain, Miss D had been a Carer for her long term partner and their adult son who both suffered with long term health complications, both mental and physical.  Following her surgery, Miss D was unable to offer either of them the same level of care she had previously provided as she now required help and assistance.

Miss D consulted us in 2013.  We investigated the treatment she had received.  An independent Orthopaedic Surgeon was of the view that Miss D condition should have been suspected and diagnosed in November but also raised concerns about the Nurse Practitioner’s failure to arrange an urgent MRI scan when Miss D complained of urinary symptoms in October.  With a diagnosis and treatment at this time, Miss D would have avoided any bowel and bladder dysfunction and would have made a full recovery.

The Hospital Trust admitted breach of duty for failing to make an earlier diagnosis and accepted that they had caused some of the injuries which Miss D complained about but they did not accept that her current level of back pain could be attributable to their mistakes.  As a result, we started court proceedings.

We continued to investigate the cause and extent of Miss D’s injuries with a Neurosurgeon, a Urological Surgeon, a Bowel Surgeon and a Psychiatrist.  We obtained reports on what level of care and assistance Miss D now needed and what other therapies and aids and equipment she needed now and for the rest of her life as a result of the admitted negligence.

The claim continued for Miss D.  We arranged for her to undergo Cognitive Behavioural Therapy and Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR).  Miss D was reluctant at first but the medication prescribed by her GP was not helping and she felt so low that she agreed to engage with a therapist.  We obtained some interim payments of compensation for her so she could buy some of the aids she needed, change her car to one with a more comfortable driving position and replace items in the home that she needed as a result of her condition.

The Defendants maintained that her current level of back pain was not a result of the negligence and they also insisted that the Claimant be examined by independent experts that they instructed.  With both parties having very opposing views on the cause of the current level of back pain and therefore the amount of compensation due to Miss D, the last step before trial was to have the experts instructed by both sides to meet and discuss their differences and provide a joint report on the issues on which they agreed and disagreed.

It was only at this stage, only 4 months before trial, that it was agreed by the Defendant’s Orthopaedic expert that while the negligence had not worsened Miss D’s underlying degenerative back condition, the fatigue, depression, anxiety and neuropathic pain which were all a result of the admitted negligence HAD in fact had the effect of worsening her back pain as claimed.  With four weeks left before a 7-day trial, the parties met and agreed a settlement of almost half a million pounds.

On the face of it, this was a straightforward case but the parties had such polar opposite views on the cause of the worsening back pain that the matter could not be resolved until the experts with the opposing views met.  We had asked the Solicitors to agree to this some 6 months earlier but this was refused.  This was a difficult case for the Claimant and at times she felt she should give up but we supported her and with her family and therapist helped build her up when she felt she couldn’t continue.

By the end of the case, she was able to see that her decision to come to us to investigate this claim had been the right one.  While we could not repair the damage done, we had helped her achieve the means to make her life easier and more comfortable.

A claim for medical negligence can be lengthy and challenging and once you suspect you have suffered an injury as a result of unacceptable treatment, the most important choice you then have to make is instructing the right Specialist Solicitor who will guide and support you through the claim.  We are always happy to discuss any potential claims.  This is all we do and all we know.  Don’t hesitate to contact us.

Ashleigh Holt – February 2020

A 2019 Roundup

We would like to wish a very happy and healthy 2020 to all of our past and present clients and our legal colleagues who kindly and faithfully recommend clients to us as a specialist firm in Teesside handling clinical negligence claims.

In 2019 we continued to act for Claimants pursuing claims against James Cook University Hospital, the University Hospital of North Tees and Darlington Memorial Hospital to name but a few who had suffered injuries as a result of substandard treatment.  We recovered compensation for many injured parties with a range of injuries including strokes, bladder and bowel injuries.  Sadly we continue to act for too many claimants who have lost husbands and wives, parents and children as a result of negligence.

As a firm, all of our file handlers continued to be legally qualified Solicitors.  Having trained with Armstrong Foulkes at the beginning of her career and having continued working with the firm, we were delighted to welcome Kathryn Watson as a Partner in October.  We also said goodbye to a long standing member of our support staff, Honor Hogg, who retired in December.  Having originally decided to retire in 2009, she actually stayed another 10 years before deciding she would have some time for herself.  We will miss her company and her warm and attentive manner will be greatly missed by the clients she has looked after over the years.  She will always be a welcome visitor.

We retained our rankings in the legal publications, the Legal 500 and Chambers & Partners, as the only top tier and band 1 firm in our area.  The researchers for these organisations scrutinise solicitors’ firms and speak to our clients so that anyone looking for a solicitor can learn more about the firms they may be approaching to help them.  We would recommend that anyone who has suffered medical negligence check these online to make sure that the firms they contact have the relevant experience and skills to take on their case.

Finally, we would like to take this opportunity to confirm that our hard work will continue and we will maintain our support of injured parties and campaign for improved medical treatment.  We look forward to supporting our clients in the coming year.

Ashleigh Holt – January 2020

Six year battle in claim for young mother’s death

Mrs C was diagnosed with a progressive, life-limiting auto immune disease affecting her lungs.  Due to the nature of her illness, she was managed between her  local hospital and a national centre for lung diseases in London.  In 2009 she gave birth to her first child, a son, and in 2012 she became pregnant again.   During the pregnancy, she developed a community acquired aspergilus infection.  This is a serious fungal infection and left untreated it can develop into a fungal mass in the lung cavity resulting in death.  Tragically for Mrs C  and her loved ones, the delay in diagnosing the infection and then inadequate treatment of it meant that she was unable to recover and she sadly passed away in hospital in 2013 only 6 weeks after having given birth to her daughter.

Mr C first sought our help shortly after his wife’s death.  We agreed to investigate the treatment his wife had received and obtained reports from a Respiratory Physician, an Obstetrician and a Thoracic Transplant Surgeon who were all critical about the standard of care Mrs C had received.

The medical evidence in this case was extremely complicated and further more by the fact that Mrs C had significant pre-existing lung damage and compromised lung function in any event.  However, our medical experts were critical of the lack of advice and information which had been given to Mr and Mrs C surrounding pregnancy and its impact on her mortality, the failure to refer her for assessment for a lung transplant and the negligent delay in diagnosing and appropriately treating the aspergilus infection.  Ultimately it was  concluded that the failure to treat Mrs C with anti-fungal medication earlier and over treating her with steroid medication caused her premature death.

The hospitals involved in the care of Mrs C denied that there were any failings in her treatment or care until 2018 when they eventually admitted that the infection should have been diagnosed several months sooner.  However, while they accepted they had breached their duty of care to Mrs C, they denied that this breach caused or contributed to her death.

With the continued support of our medical experts and a specialist barrister, we prepared to issue court proceedings against the local hospital Trust on behalf of Mr C and his children.    At this point, Solicitors acting for the hospital proposed that the parties attend a mediation meeting.  Mr C saw this as a positive step and willingly accepted the invitation and while this did not end with a settlement, it did allow the parties to narrow the issues between them and shortly after the mediation, but some 6 years after the death of his wife, Mr C accepted an offer in settlement of the claims.

This was a devastating and sad case.  The legal issues were complex and challenging and required detailed scrutiny and analysis which we were able to offer because of our many years of experience in practicing solely in medical negligence claims.  Mr C needed our help at the very worst time of his life to answer questions that he had but also to help him find the answers to questions he knows his children will have in the years to come.

In cases like this one, information can be what those left behind crave most.  Monetary compensation will never replace or make up for the loss of a loved one but it is also true that in many cases, losing a loved one can create a significant financial burden on families which compensation can help to relieve.  If you have suffered an injury or lost a loved one as a result of medical negligence, the team at Armstrong Foulkes LLP will be happy to discuss what has happened with you and help you where they can so please don’t hesitate to contact us.

Ashleigh Holt – October 2019

Small change in the discount rate still favours the Claimant

The discount rate is a percentage that is applied in claims where an injured person receives compensation now but this is to cover losses that they are expected to incur the future.  There is accelerated receipt of the money and the court therefore assumes that the injured person will invest their compensation and earn interest on it.

Between 2001 and 2017 the discount rate was set at 2.5%.  This was very favourable to the Defendants and it meant that if a Claimant was claiming 20 years’ worth of lost earnings the Defendants would only need to pay out just over 15 years’ worth as it was assumed the Claimant would be able to cover the missing years with the interest they had earned.

For many years, Claimant’s solicitors and organisations representing injured people said this was not good enough and that Claimants were being short changed.  They could not cover the loss with low risk investments as had previously been anticipated.

The Government, by way of the Lord Chancellor, did not look at this again until 2017 when the discount rate fell to -0.75%.

This caused a tidal wave of responses as insurance companies and the NHS lobbied for the discount rate to be reviewed again immediately as it would cost them millions in additional damages despite the savings they had previously and unjustly been making.  It was a very good time to settle claims for the Claimant as instead of recovering 20 years’ worth of lost earnings they were suddenly recovering nearly 22 years’ worth and the greater the period of loss, the greater the additional recovery for the Claimant.

In just over 2 years the Lord Chancellor announced the result of a review of the discount rate which was to be applied from 5 August 2019.  The new rate of -0.25% has increased but only marginally so, much to the chagrin of Defendants and their representatives who had expected a result much closer to the previous 2.5% rate.

While this is good news for the Claimant, it should be noted that the Government are clearly now going to review the discount rate more regularly and given the length of time it takes to settle the high value multi track cases where discount rates are applicable, there is no certainty that a case you take on today will reap the benefits of such a low discount rate by the time compensation is awarded in 4 years’ time!

Ashleigh Holt – September 2019

Government now picking up the tab for GP errors

Historically, GPs and any staff in general practice, including nurses, needed to arrange their own personal indemnity cover with a medical defence organisation in order to indemnify them in claims against them for medical negligence.  This would be in a similar way to you or I arranging insurance cover against loss or damage caused by us or others to our cars or our homes.  However, the position for all claims arising from incidents that occurred on or after 1 April 2019 against anyone working in primary care NHS services is that they will now be handled by NHS Resolution under the Clinical Negligence Scheme for General Practice.  (CNSGP).

The main function of NHS Resolution, formerly known as NHS Litigation Authority is to manage claims made against the NHS  in England.  The main reason for the introduction of this latest scheme is to reduce the cost of indemnity cover for individual health care providers but what are the benefits and pitfalls for the Claimant.

NHS Resolution have been doing this type of work for many, many years so they are well versed in how to manage the claims and having one single point of contact for claimants will be helpful in those cases where the GP or staff member has moved on and the Claimant is having difficulty tracing them or confirming their medical defence organisation details and whether they indeed had indemnity cover.  It will also allow scope for other settlement options that weren’t open to GPs previously such as periodical payment orders i.e., where the injured party receives an annual sum for an element or elements of the claim rather than one large lump sum.  This is usually applicable in cases involving catastrophic injuries and this type of settlement can be very attractive to such injured claimants.

NHS Resolution is however not a perfect model.  We routinely see claims being defended, despite admissions of unacceptable treatment being previously made by way of complaints or the Trust’s own root cause analysis investigations.  The cases then have to be pursued and litigated increasing the costs in the claim and the amount of time it takes to reach a settlement.

At this early stage, it is too early to tell if this is a good move but what we can almost certainly guarantee is that we will hear about the increased costs to the tax payer of dealing with these claims.

Ashleigh Holt – July 2019

Bicep injury attracts compensation of over £60,000

In addition to his usual daily employment, Mr B worked as a bouncer a few evenings a week to supplement his income and support his large family.  It was on one of these evenings that he felt something snap in his left upper arm which immediately felt painful and weak.  The following day, his arm was still painful and a bruise had started to form just past his left elbow.  Within 48 hours there was heavy red bruising around the arm and his bicep muscle appeared to be moving under his arm.

Mr B attended his local Accident and Emergency Department and was seen by an Emergency Care Practitioner.  She examined his arm and diagnosed a partial rupture of his left bicep.  She discussed the diagnosis with a doctor and then discharged Mr B with advise to rest the arm.  Mr B accepted the advice but became concerned after a few months that his arm was just not improving so he consulted his GP who referred him to an Orthopaedic Surgeon.  He was eventually seen by a specialist 9 months after the original injury and was diagnosed with a complete rupture of his bicep however secondary reconstruction at this late stage carried a 40 – 50% risk of nerve injury resulting in further permanent disability seriously affecting the function of his arm.  Mr B was strongly advised against any surgical intervention and a subsequent ultrasound scan confirmed the diagnosis.

As a result of the continued weakness and discomfort in his arm, and the lack of treatment options, Mr B was unable to continue working as doorman and he continues to be at a disadvantage on the open labour market.

Initially Mr B made a complaint to the Trust about the standard of treatment he had received.  The Trust’s first response was to advise that they had referred him to physiotherapy and had therefore discharged their duty of care.  Mr B objected to this and following a meeting with the Trust, they conceded they could not confirm that a physiotherapy referral had been made.  Mr B sought our help at this point and we agreed to investigate his case and offered him a “no win, no fee” agreement.

With the assistance of independent expert witnesses in the fields of Nursing and Orthopaedic Surgery, we discovered that there is a duty on examining clinicians to confirm or refute if a patient has suffered a total rupture.  This would usually be by way of a scan or a referral to the fracture clinic so that the patient can be examined by an Orthopaedic Surgeon.  There is some urgency in getting the diagnosis in an injury like this as repairs are easiest and most successful if carried out within 3 weeks in which case the patient will usually recover 95% of their original strength.  A referral to physiotherapy would be inadequate when the nature of the injury has not been confirmed.

A formal Letter of Claim setting out our allegations was sent to the Trust and a full admission of breach of duty and causation was admitted within the 4 month pre action protocol period in which the Defendants have to respond.  An initial offer of settlement was made in the sum of £10,000 however this was rejected because of the loss of earnings he had suffered in being unable to continue his door work.

Negotiations commenced and just before court proceedings were to be started the Defendants made a reasonable offer in full and final settlement of the claim.

The injury Mr B suffered is considered relatively minor.  He had a good degree of function remaining in his arm.  He was able to continue in his main employment and while being a doorman was no longer suitable for him, he was able to undertake other types of evening jobs if he wanted to in order to minimise his loss.  Therefore the element of the compensation he received for the actual injury was assessed at around £12,500 meaning that he recovered over £50,000 in past and future loss of earnings.

It is not uncommon for injuries considered less serious than others to attract higher awards of compensation because of the impact the injury can have on other areas of a person’s life.  Someone can have limited pain but they may suffer other restrictions in their life that they can be compensated for.

If you have suffered a similar injury, it is worth taking the time to get some from a specialist solicitor before dismissing it as being “not worth it”.  Our solicitors are more than happy to discuss this with you.

Ashleigh Holt, June 2019

Coronary disease misdiagnosed as tennis elbow

During the Christmas holidays Mrs A developed pain going down her left arm and pain from her right ear travelling down into her jaw, neck and top of her chest.  The pains would come and go in waves and would wake her from her sleep so when things did not resolve after a few days she attended a Walk in centre to see a GP.

The GP carried out an examination and diagnosed her as suffering from gastro-oesophageal reflux due to over indulgence in the festive period and tennis elbow for which she should take Paracetamol.

Mrs A’s symptoms continued and she began to feel worse.  She planned to make an appointment at her own GP practice when it re-opened but she was not afforded this opportunity and suffered a cardiac arrest at home in the meantime.  Her collapse was witnessed by her youngest child whose screams alerted Mrs A’s husband.  A 999 call was made and Mr A performed CPR until the Paramedics arrived.  Mrs A was taken to hospital but died a few days later.

Mr A approached us to investigate the standard of care that his wife had received from the GP who had seen his wife.  With the assistance of an independent GP expert witness and an independent expert witness in Cardiology we were able to establish that the GP had failed in his duty of care to Mrs A in not identifying that her symptoms could have a cardiac cause and to refer her urgently to hospital for investigations.  We were able to say that on the balance of probabilities, the results of these investigations would have been abnormal and lead to Mrs A being commenced on an acute coronary syndrome pathway including medication and stenting of blocked arteries.

With this treatment, she would have avoided the cardiac arrest and importantly she would have survived and lived to an old age.

Solicitors for the GP initially admitted breach of duty but denied that that the failure to refer Mrs A to hospital had made any difference to the outcome.  Formal Court proceedings then had to be started and the Defendants quickly made a full admission of liability for Mrs A’s death.

Mrs A had been the primary carer for her children while her husband worked and as a result the majority of the compensation claimed was for the loss of care and services Mrs A had provided to her family.  A 6 figure settlement was agreed between the parties and was  approved by the Court.

Acute coronary syndrome can be misdiagnosed as the symptoms, particularly in women, can mimic other conditions and can be atypical.  The consequences of failing to pick up on early signs can be catastrophic and as illustrated in this case, it can be fatal.  Early diagnosis and treatment is essential.

If you have suffered as a result of a missed or delayed diagnosis, we would be happy to discuss this further with you.

Ashleigh Holt – February 2019

Favourable changes in claims for surrogacy

As a firm we have previously acted for clients who have lost the ability to conceive and carry a child naturally as a result of medical negligence.  Until very recently our hands have been tied as to what our clients could claim for.  We have been able to recover as compensation the costs of IVF treatment and in some cases for our clients to engage a surrogate in the UK to carry a child on their behalf and the expenses associated with this but there are strict limits which reflect the current law in the UK which in turn have meant a limit on compensation levels.

Despite surrogacy becoming increasingly popular and accepted, the law in the UK has not quite kept up with this so while surrogacy is legal, it is also restricted, particularly when compared to the laws in other countries such as the USA.  Notably:

  1. In the UK no one can profit from surrogacy.  Therefore the surrogate can only claim her expenses.
  2. In the UK, once the child is born, the surrogate is regarded as the legal mother.  This is even the case where the surrogate has carried someone else’s biological child.  A court order is required to give the intended parents the correct legal status and it is possible for the birth mother to refuse to part with the child.
  3. In the UK, the surrogate will chose the parent/parents she wants to assist.  This is often done at “parties” which can be intimidating and frightening for couples who have already been dealt a vicious blow.

In the recent case of XX and Whittington Hospital NHS Trust (2017) EWHC 2318 QB, a High Court Judge held that XX’s claim for the expenses of using a surrogate in California where commercial surrogacy is widely accepted and legal were not recoverable because commercial arrangements in the UK were illegal and it was against public policy.  He therefore limited XX’s claim to using her own egg’s and a surrogate in the UK and the associated costs of that.  The total compensation he allowed for this was £74,000 which was intend to produce two children.

Despite the damning judgement, the Judge did suggest that the Supreme Court which is the final court of appeal in the UK may see things differently.  XX was therefore allowed to appeal this decision and the matter was heard at the Court of Appeal in November 2018.  The outcome was that her appeal was successful and it was held that she should not be barred from recovering reasonable compensation for her loss which would include the costs or entering into a lawful commercial surrogacy contract in California.  She would not be breaking any laws.

This is an exciting development in this area of the law.  Claimants from the UK who need to engage a surrogate can now claim the costs entering into a contract with a surrogate in the USA who essentially carries and gives birth to other people’s children for a living.  Claimant’s will now no longer be restricted to having to use their own eggs but will be able to use donor eggs from a surrogate of their choice or another donor and they will be able to return to the UK with the child legally theirs.

The obvious downside to this in terms of the “public purse” is the difference in cost.  In the USA, to produce two live births via a surrogate the associated costs will run into perhaps hundreds of thousands but to someone who has been told they will not be able to have a child, no amount of compensation can restore them to how they would have been but for the negligence.

If you have been affected by infertility as a result of failed or unacceptable medical treatment, please contact us to discuss this further.

Ashleigh Holt – January 2019

Top rankings again for Armstrong Foulkes LLP!

We are delighted that once again, we have received the top ranking in 2 prestigious guides to UK solicitors; Chambers & Partners and The Legal 500.  These rankings, which we have held for many years, are reviewed each year following interviews from clients and legal professionals with whom we work.

We are the only firm in the Teesside area to be awarded a Band 1 ranking for Claimant clinical negligence work by Chambers & Partners and we have also been awarded a Tier 1 ranking in The Legal 500.  We are described as a top-quality boutique with a superb reputation for complex clinical negligence claims and expertise in a wide range of matters”.  Our solicitors are praised for being “friendly, prompt when communicating and have really good specialist knowledge of their subject” and that “nothing fazes them and they obtain good results for their clients, who they place at the centre of each case.”

In these publications, Hilton Armstrong is described as “a tough and determined litigator” with “excellent judgement” who always explains matters clearly, is always approachable and keeps us informed as to what is happening and why.”

Joanne Davies is hailed for being “extremely meticulous” with clients reportedly being particularly impressed by the “very proactive, clear and understanding” way she handles claims.

Ashleigh Holt, who is described as being “experienced and intuitive” is applauded for conducting litigation “with exemplary vision and skill”. Interviewees report her to be “very organised, engaged with the issues and understanding of the situation.”

Kathryn Watson is also recommended with sources admiring “her knowledge and client service” with one client reporting “you can tell that she cares.”

We are proud to continue to hold top rankings in these two reputable publications and are gratified to receive such positive feedback, particularly from our clients as their opinions are what matter to us most.

If you or a family member have concerns about any aspect of medical treatment and would like no obligation advice from one of our solicitors, please do not hesitate to contact us on 01642 231110.

Kathryn Watson – December 2018

District Nurses mismanagement of pressure sore leads to death of disabled patient

Mrs R was a mother of 3 in her early 50s and suffering from Multiple Sclerosis when she developed a pressure sore to her sacrum.  This was identified during an admission to hospital.  When she was fit to be discharged arrangements were made for the community nursing team to manage the sore.

Despite identifying the sore as grade 3 and noting that an air mattress was needed, this was not then ordered for a further 30 days.  Over the next few weeks it was clear that the wound was deteriorating and becoming necrotic.  A Tissue Viability Nurse (TVN) was eventually asked to see Mrs R and she prescribed good treatment which would soften and debride the wound and kill and protect against bacteria however this advice was not followed and instead a dressing was applied which would not alter the wound status.

The wound continued to worsen and became inflamed and the TVN recommended hospital admission as it was suspected that she was becoming septic.  Mrs R was treated with intravenous antibiotics but her pressure sore was now described as grade 4 and so she was discharged from hospital with a Topical Negative Pressure (TNP) dressing however the district nursing team were unable to manage the TNP and it transpired that it had not actually been working since she was discharged from hospital.

Over the next few days Mrs R looked increasing unwell.  She was losing weight and was suffering nausea and her family were struggling to cope with the dressing of the wound and caring for her.  The community nurses continued to visit but the record keeping became sparse and less detailed.  Mrs R continued to decline until she was admitted to hospital after being found unresponsive.  On admission, bone was seen to be clearly visible through the wound to her sacrum.  She was severely septic and no treatment could be offered.  She sadly passed away shortly after, only 5 months after the sore was first noticed.  It was concluded that the most likely source of the infection was her pressure sore.

We were approached by Mrs R’s husband and sons to investigate the standard of care their wife and mother had received and the independent expert reports we obtained were damning of the standard of nursing case given to Mrs R.  In particular, the independent nursing experts was of the view that they had failed to:

  1.        Arrange for pressure relieving equipment soon enough
  2.        Arrange for a TVN visit soon enough
  3.        Follow the TVN’s advice and the Trust’s own policy for managing pressure wounds
  4.        Manage dressings appropriately
  5.        Arrange for further review/earlier re-admission to hospital

With proper treatment the view was that Mrs R’s sore would have healed and a second medical expert agreed that the failures in her treatment and care resulted in her death from sepsis.

When these allegations were put to the Trust responsible for the community/district nurses, we were faced with denials and the Trust were very keen to push the burden and the blame on Mrs R and her family.

As a result court proceedings were commenced but shortly after solicitors acting for the Trust entered into negotiations to settle the claim and Mr R agreed to accept a five figure sum.

This was a terribly sad case.  Mrs R and her family had been dogged by her ill health for years but they had rallied.  For her to be failed so absolutely when she desperately needed help most devastated them.

Pressure sores require careful and intensive treatment.  They don’t resolve on their own and as this case shows they can prove to be fatal.  If you or someone you know has suffered a pressure sore or deterioration of a sore due to poor medical care and treatment, please contact us for a free discussion.

Ashleigh Holt – October 2018

Failing to act on abnormal Echocardiogram leads to heart failure

Mr P was referred to a Consultant Respiratory Physician at James Cook University Hospital after developing shortness of breath and a cough in 2014.  Over the next 3 months the Consultant arranged a series of investigations including an Echocardiogram (Echo).  This showed Mr P had a mild left ventricular systolic impairment.

Mr P was told the Echo was normal and 3 months later he was referred to another hospital for a second opinion.  The referral letter requesting the second opinion advised that the  Echo was “normal”.

Mr P’s condition continued to deteriorate.  By March 2016 he was struggling with day to day activities.  He was unable to sleep as he was struggling to breathe when he lay down.  He could not make it upstairs to bed.  In May 2016 he attended a review appointment and his condition prompted his Consultant to admit him to hospital there and then for further investigation.  A second echocardiogram now showed significant left ventricular dysfunction and Mr P was told he was in severe heart failure.  His left ventricle was narrowed and his aorta was only working 15 – 20%.

Mr P’s care was transferred to a Cardiologist and he was started on a number of anti-heart failure medications.  He was initially unable to return to work as a HGV driver as his condition had to be reported to the DVLA and his driving licence.  It was later returned when a further echocardiogram showed that he was responding to the medication and his condition had improved.

We investigated the standard of care Mr P had received with an independent Respiratory Physician and Cardiologist.  They confirmed that he should have been referred to a Cardiologist following his first Echo and he would have been commenced on treatment 2 years earlier.  Had this occurred, the progression of his condition would have been slower and he would not have developed heart failure in 2016.

These allegations were put to the Trust and were admitted.  A financial settlement was achieved quite quickly for a 5 figure sum.  However, Mr P had lost 2 years of his and his young son’s life and his heart condition had been accelerated.

If you have suffered an injury as a result of a test or investigation being wrongly reported or interpreted and you would like to discuss this please contact us for free no obligation advice.

Ashleigh Holt – September 2018

Accreditation by the Foundation for Infant Loss

As solicitors specialising in Medical Negligence claims we are regularly approached by parents who are contacting us as a result of the loss of their child before, during and after their birth as a result of suspected negligence treatment. We know that despite our knowledge of the events and experience in these claims we can never know how these parents feel or what they are going through. We do however strive to be understanding and respectful in these situations. Our Joanne Davies, Ashleigh Holt and Kathryn Watson have therefore recently undergone training with the Foundation for Infant Loss to better understand the grieving process and what occurs in hospital after the loss of an infant. Our aim is to become better informed and improve a difficult experience pursuing a clinical negligence claim in these situations. As a result of this training Armstrong Foulkes is now proud to be accredited by and supported by the Foundation for Infant Loss. www.foundationforinfantloss.co.uk/. Our accreditation certificate is set out below.

If as a client or even as a visitor to our website we can offer you any further information on the Foundation and its services please do not hesitate to contact us. If you have suffered the loss of a child as a result of clinical negligence we appreciate that the thought of approaching a solicitor can be a daunting. Our solicitors are always prepared to have informal discussions by telephone without any obligation to proceed with a claim. If we can be of assistance please do not hesitate to contact us on 01642 231110.

Joanne Davies – July 2018

This is to certify that:  Armstrong Foulkes Solicitors

Are fully accredited and supported by The Foundation for Infant Loss Training

 

Signed:     

Dr Chantal Lockey

Chief Executive

The Foundation for Infant Loss Training

1 July 2018

 

 

 

Premature death of County Durham lung cancer patient

Mrs N was aged 69 when she developed pain in her right shoulder blade.  Her GP arranged for her to have a chest x-ray at a local hospital in April 2013 and this was reported as normal.

Mrs N’s back pain continued.  By the end of 2013 she was suffering some breathing difficulties which were attributed to a chest infection.  When antibiotics failed to improve her condition a second chest x-ray was arranged.  This revealed nodules on her lungs which required further investigation.  She was referred for a CT scan and to a Chest Physician under the 2 week wait rule.

Sadly, the outcome in January 2014 was that Mrs N was suffering from lung cancer.  It was in both lungs and had spread to her spine.  It was at this stage that the Chest Physician realised that the April 2013 x-ray had also shown a mass in Mrs N’s right lung and that this had been missed.

The hospital investigated this error and confirmed that they had contracted out the work of reporting her x-ray to an outside service provider who has missed the lesion.  They could only apologise.

Mrs N commenced treatment and responded well initially.  She was a very fit lady and coped well with the treatment however a follow up CT scan showed that the cancer was progressing.  In February 2015 the cancer was found to have metastasised to her brain and Mrs N passed away in May 2015, aged 72, leaving behind her husband of over 50 years who continued with the claim on her behalf.

The NHS Trust responsible accepted that they had breached their duty to care to Mrs N very early on however they disputed that the 9 month delay made any difference to her treatment or prognosis.  As a result Mr N was forced to issue Court proceedings against the Trust in August 2016.

Mr N’s case, supported by an independent Clinical Oncologist was that

a) His wife’s cancer should have been diagnosed in May 2013.

b) There was no evidence that the cancer had spread by this time and his wife would have been offered surgery to remove the cancer followed by chemotherapy.

c) As a result of the delay in diagnosis, the cancer had been allowed to spread so that surgery was no longer an option.

d) His wife’s life had been shortened by more than 2 years as a result.

The NHS Trust disputed the Claimant’s evidence but only months before a trial at the High Court was due to start, the matter was settled in 2018 in Mr N’s favour when he agreed to accept a 5-figure sum in damages.

The motivation for Mr N was never compensation.  He feels that he has finally got justice for his wife but he continues to miss her every day and he feels robbed of the time he should have been able to spend with her.

Delaying a diagnosis and treatment of cancer of any kind can mean the difference between life and death.  If you have been affected in this way, please get in touch with one of our solicitors to discuss if there is anything we can do to help.

Ashleigh Holt – June 2018

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

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

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

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

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

“Compensating mistakes is not destroying the NHS!”

It was recently reported in the national press that the Chief Executive of the NHS Litigation Authority has labelled costs of pursuing legal claims for clinical negligence as “taking money away from NHS care”.  In her view “that is just wrong”.  In fairness, she was referring to some very specific cases but it is still this very narrow interpretation of merely one of the demands on NHS funding which can be enough to deter patients from pursuing a claim for injuries they have suffered through no fault of their own.

It is not uncommon to speak to a potential new client and hear them say (in hushed tones) something alone the lines of “I’ve never done this before” or “I don’t really agree with making claims”.  They can almost sound ashamed.

What concerns us as specialist medical claims lawyers is the implied suggestion that victims of medical negligence are the ones robbing the NHS and society of better treatment and care.  There are many myths to dispel and we have simply picked out a few that should be taken into account when considering the other side of the argument:

  1. The suggestion that small claims often have no merit or are trivial is incorrect.  In around 99% of cases an independent medical expert is needed to say that the standard of treatment  was so poor and so bad that no competent medical professional would have acted in that way.  It is not a low threshold.  This is a very high standard of proof and the burden is always on the claimant to undertake these investigations and prove their case.  If there was no case to pursue, we would not do so and when there is no case the Defendants do not pay out compensation or costs.
  2. The NHS is still not throwing its hands in the air often enough despite the recommendations for there to be a ‘duty of candour’ when mistakes and errors are made that fall outside of the realm of accepted practice.  Quite often the costs we incur in a claim are a reflection of how the NHS responds to the allegations put to them.  We look forward to an attitude of openness and transparency becoming the norm but we are simply not seeing this filter through yet.
  3. There is absolutely no evidence that if the cost of claims decreased that the money saved would be put back into treatment and care.  The NHS is one of the UK’s largest employers and it has business interests and competitors like many other organisations.
  4. Finally, avoidable mistakes are still being made and in our practice we see daily reminders that the real cost is to the patients and their families.

At Armstrong Foulkes one of our lawyers will always be happy to speak to you about any injury which results from medical treatment and discuss with you the possibility of pursing a claim.  Please feel free to call us on 01642 231110, e-mail us by completing the form on our Contacts page or drop into our office.

Ashleigh Holt – June 2014