Tag Archives: Clinical Negligence solicitors

Second Opinions – how to get them

A lot of what Doctors and lawyers tell you is their opinion and not necessarily factual.  As professionals we need to exercise our judgment based on our experience.  Often what we say is not what you want to hear, but it is our job to tell it as we see it.

So, for example your doctor may tell you that after looking at the scans your cancer is inoperable and only palliative care is required.  Or, the slipped disc in your back requires surgery that may result in you having to give up sport or work.

From the patient or client’s point of view sometimes this can be hard to comprehend and accept.  So what can you do if you are not convinced by what your doctor has told you?  You need to follow these steps:

  1. Ask the doctor to explain again. Step by step, and slowly.  Are they absolutely certain that their view is correct?  At this point your doctor will probably accept that there is a range of opinion but go on to explain why they think they are right.
  2. If you still feel unconvinced by their explanation ask them if they would object to you obtaining a second opinion. They are unlikely to disagree.  Usually they will recommend one of their colleagues, or alternatively you may have your own idea of who to go to.
  3. If your treatment is under the NHS it is even possible to choose a doctor from outside the hospital you are being treated at. If that is the case you would need to contact them and make arrangements for a consultation.  If you are paying privately then you would have to pay for the second opinion.
  4. When you see the new doctor after a discussion they will give you their own opinion. It may be the same as your original doctor or it may be different. If different you will need to talk about transferring your care to the new doctor.

It is important to understand that by asking for a second opinion you are not falling out with your doctor.  They will not be offended at all.  On the contrary they will probably encourage it as they will feel a lot more comfortable about your intended treatment if another doctor agrees with them.

Hilton Armstrong – October 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

Avoidable pressure injuries admitted by hospital as part of their duty of candour

Mrs P, an 80 year old lady at the time of treatment, developed severe pressure injuries to her heels and buttock whilst an inpatient at the James Cook University Hospital.  The pressure sore to her right heel was particularly serious, requiring multiple courses of antibiotics due to infection of the bone, hospitalisation, surgical debridement and taking 9 months to heal.

Initially, she did not consider that these sores may have developed as a result of substandard treatment.  However, the hospital adhered to their duty of candour which stipulates that medical professionals should be open and honest with patients and admit when something has gone wrong.  It was only after they told her they thought the sores were avoidable did she decide to contact us for advice.

We took her case on to investigate the standard of the nursing care whilst she was an inpatient.  Our nursing expert was critical of the nurses who had been responsible for Mrs P and identified a number of failings in their care, in particular failing to ensure adequate pressure relief by the use of repositioning and pressure relieving devices.  We then obtained expert evidence from a vascular surgeon on the effects of the injuries Mrs P sustained and he was also critical of the treatment she received from her treating doctors – she was suffering from leg ischaemia which required revascularisation surgery.  Had this been performed earlier, the injuries to her heels would have been avoided.

The hospital was slow to respond to our allegations of negligence and only did so once we were about to issue court proceedings.  They admitted liability and the claim was settled shortly thereafter for £25,000.

In this case, the hospital followed the duty of candour policy and informed Mrs P that, in their opinion, the injuries she sustained were avoidable.  Often, hospitals and doctors are not so forthcoming.  If you think you have suffered an injury as a result of negligent treatment, please contact us on 01642 231110 and one of our solicitors will be happy to advise you.  There is no obligation on you to pursue a claim and the initial discussion is free of charge.

Kathryn Watson – September 2018

Changes to requests for copy medical records

As a patient, you have a right to see and obtain copies of your medical records (see our previous post https://armstrongfoulkes.co.uk/your-rights-to-access-medical-records/). However, with the introduction of GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018, the rules surrounding such a request for copy records have changed.

Data Protection Act 2018

Under the new rules, a patient still has a right to request copies of their medical records and the procedure for doing so remains the same.  However, whereas before the organisation holding the records (such as a hospital or GP practice) could charge up to a maximum of £50 to provide copies, there should now be no charge unless the request is “manifestly unfounded or excessive”.  Therefore, in the vast majority of cases, you should be able to obtain copies of your records free of charge.

The new rules also provide that you should receive copies of your records more quickly than previously.  Under the old rules, a provider had 40 days to provide copies whereas this has now been reduced to 1 month from receipt of the request.

Access to Health Records Act 1990

The new rules only apply to request for copy records for a living person and therefore the rules relating to requests for records of someone who has died have not changed.  Such requests are still governed by the Access to Health Records Act 1990.  This act says that the person providing the records is entitled to charge a fee and there is no maximum amount.

We are always happy to speak to you if you need assistance or advice on obtaining your records or about any possible claim. Please feel free to call one of our specialist solicitors on 01642 231110 for a free no obligation chat.

Kathryn Watson – August 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

 

 

 

No action on suspicious chest x-rays at James Cook University Hospital in the Summer of 2016

SB was only 54 when she died of lung cancer.  A Wife and Mother.  Five months earlier she had been admitted to hospital complaining of chest pains.  She had a chest x-ray which revealed a tumour with a recommendation for an urgent CT scan.  Regrettably SB was not informed of the results and advice for a CT scan was not followed.  She was discharged home with a diagnosis of musco-skeletal chest pain with no further action planned.

The tumour grew.  It wasn’t until 4 weeks before her death that she and the Family were told she had incurable lung cancer and palliative treatment was all that could be offered.  Around the same time the results and recommendation of the earlier chest x-ray were passed on to SB and her Family.  An opportunity for treatment and surgery had been lost and a life unnecessarily shortened.

The family consulted us and we were able to secure an early admission of fault and payment of compensation to the Husband.  I’m afraid that was all the legal system could do.

However, it later transpired that this was not the only missed chest x-ray at JCUH in the Summer of 2016.  We had two other cases where women, also in their 50’s had a chest x-ray which identified a tumour with recommendations for further tests, and in both those cases the information was not acted upon and the women died.  We have taken the matter up with the Chief Executive of the Trust and are awaiting a formal response.  Apologies have been given over the phone and we have been told an explanatory letter is on its way.

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 to discuss if there is anything we can do to help.

Hilton Armstrong – July 2018

General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR)

To run a case Lawyers collect and process a lot of information on clients including some personal data e.g. date of birth, email address, national insurance number, passport or driving licence number etc.  We also share this data with others e.g. experts we instruct, the Barrister on the case, the Defendants solicitors etc.  We have to do this or we couldn’t pursue the claim.

The law is changing on 25 May 2018.  This is when the General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) comes into force.  It impose obligations on all organisations (not just us Lawyers) to look after this personal data safely, process it lawfully and restrict its access by others.  Clients have the right to see this data and have it deleted at any time, although insisting on deletion whilst a case is ongoing would of course not be practical.

I think GDPR is good news for all of us.  It should ensure that our personal data is looked after more securely by all organisations and not passed on or sold to others without our specific consent.  I am hoping the amount of spam emails and the unsolicited calls and texts we are all plagued by at the moment substantially reduces.  Fingers crossed, although I am not holding my breath!

Hilton Armstrong – June 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

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

Not all claims are against GPs or Hospitals

When people think about “Medical Negligence” their minds typically jump to claims against the NHS or GP surgeries. While these types of claim are the most common they are not the only claims that we handle and we often bring claims against less obvious defendants. I’ve set out a few lesser known potential defendants below:

Care Homes/Nursing Homes – Other than hospitals and GPs practices claims against care homes or nursing homes are among the most common that we handle. When you or a loved one becomes a resident of a home like this the company and its staff have a duty to provide an adequate standard of care. If they fail to provide this standard of care, for example by failing to do enough to prevent the person from falling or developing pressure sores, a claim for negligence may arise.

The Ambulance Service – The ambulance service is often the first point of contact with the medical profession someone experiences after an accident or an emergency and the care they provide (or fail to provide) can have very serious consequences. Whilst the paramedics who were on the scene may have acted correctly, it can sometimes be the initial assessment by the ambulance dispatcher that was incorrect, resulting in a delay in attending which might have caused the injury to be worse or in some cases death.

Pharmacies – It is very important that the medication prescribed by doctors is provided correctly. A pharmacy providing incorrect medication, or an incorrect dose of the medication, can result in a claim for negligence if this failure causes you an injury.

Community Nursing – The care provided by community nurses in peoples own homes is another common source of medical negligence claims. Most typically these claims arise from a failure of the nurses to take action when wounds or pressure injuries develop.

Private Surgeons – People are often under the assumption that just because they paid privately for their treatment they are unable to bring a legal claim if this isn’t of an acceptable standard. This is completely incorrect and a private surgeon owes you the same duty to take reasonable care when treating you that an NHS doctor does.

While the above examples describe some of the more common claims we handle every medical negligence claim is different. If you believe that you may have been the victim of medical negligence, whoever provided this care, we can assist by providing free advice as to whether or not you might have a claim, don’t hesitate to call us on 01642 231110.

Dan Richardson – February 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

Dan Richardson in the Red Bull Soapbox Race 2017

For the second time in two years a team of my friends and I were lucky enough to take part in the Red Bull Soapbox race held at Alexandra Palace in London.

Out of the over 4,000 teams that applied 70 were chosen to take part in the day. On the race weekend we lined up next to some fantastic soapboxes, including a Harry Potter inspired motorcycle and sidecar, a giant Donald Trump in a bathtub and my personal favourite, a pair of raptors from Jurassic Park! The quality of design and construction of some of these soapboxes was outstanding.

Our soapbox was built from scratch and inspired by the Mad Max films. While we were all very happy with how the soapbox tuned out, in hindsight our heavy and thick costumes may have been a little warm for a hot summer day spent out in the sun!

Although we took part in the race back in 2015 we are sure that the track must have somehow gotten steeper, and the jumps bigger, in the last 2 years. Particularly daunting this year was a water jump, the first jump on the course and for many teams the only one they got to.

Despite the obstacles both my co-driver and I got to the end of the track in one piece, although unfortunately the same can’t be said for our soapbox, which chose to disintegrate spectacularly on the way down, I am sure adding to the thrill for the spectators!

Now it’s back to the drawing board for 2019’s idea……..

Dan Richardson, August 2017

[“All Dan’s colleagues here at Armstrong Foulkes were very proud, thrilled and a little scared as we watched video of him fly down the course, dodging obstacles in a disintegrating soapbox! However, like the trooper he is, despite being a little bruised and banged up he was straight back in the office and is already planning for next race! Well done Dan” – Editor]

3

1

2 5 4 7 9 8

 

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

Will the General Election result affect your claim?

The answer to this question is “No”.  You may think this is an irrelevant question and therefore pointless answer, but there is more to it than first seems.  I shall explain.

Before the General Election the Government had made it clear that it was their intention to reduce the bill to the NHS arising out of clinical negligence claims.  Not only did they want to reduce the legal fees but they hoped this would also cause a reduction in the number of valid claims.  They were seeking to reduce an injured person’s access to justice by making it harder to pursue a claim.

This isn’t fair.  So we like many other firms and charities campaigned against it.  I wrote to three of our local MP’s setting out in some detail the effect of these changes on their constituents, inviting them to share their own views and asking which way they intended to vote.  Only one replied.  I wrote to the two major parties candidates in my own constituency, neither replied.  It’s pretty clear to me that this issue is not all that important to them.  It’s not a vote winner, which means the party in charge will usually get its own way.

The significance of the hung Parliament we now have is that changing the current system of compensating victims of medical negligence and making it harder to bring a claim may not be so high up on their list of priorities – they have bigger fish to fry.

This is good news for all those unfortunate enough to have been injured.

Hilton Armstrong – July 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

Increase in the value of claims with future losses – An explanation for our clients

There are several elements to calculating the right level of compensation. It is usually made up of awards for:

  • Pain, suffering and loss of amenity

Your injuries and their effect on you

  • Financial expenses incurred.

Anything you have bought or paid for as a direct result of the negligence, for example prescription or medication charges, travel expenses and loss of earnings.

  • Future anticipated losses.

These are any losses you will likely suffer in future as a result of the negligence such as ongoing medication charges, regular private treatment, annual fees for something you require or ongoing loss of earnings. They can also be one off future losses or losses recurring every 10 years in the future.

To calculate the future losses there are set formulas that all lawyers use. For future losses you take the likely future expense and multiply it by a figure known as the “multiplier”.  All lawyers use actuarial tables known as the “Ogden Tables” to work out the “multiplier” as you cannot simply use the amount of years the loss is expected. There are many different types of tables and of future loss but if we look below in general terms at a recurring loss for a set period you will see how the situation has changed in March in favour of the person claiming compensation.

When compensation is paid at trial you would receive “in your hand” the future financial cost of the expense, therefore if you were to suffer, for example, an annual medication cost of £100 for the next 34 years the calculation should not be £100 x 34 years = £3,400. The reason for this is that if you were to get £3,400 now you could in theory invest this and end up with more than the loss would have been at the end of the 34 years. The purpose of compensation is to put you back to where you would have been had it not been for the accident/incident/negligence therefore having more than your loss at the end of 34 years would be considered a windfall and against this principle. For this reason the figure of 34 is discounted to allow for the fact you could invest it and it could grow.

As mentioned above these discounted figures are set out in the Ogden Tables used by solicitors to calculate the position correctly. From 2001 until 19th March 2017 all “years of loss”,for example, were discounted by 2.5% to provide the correct “multiplier” or figure to times the ongoing or future loss by.

From 20th March 2017 the figure to use to discount the future loss has changed. Now instead of discounting by 2.5% in the above 34 year example it will be discounted by -0.75%. This is an incredible change and significantly increases the total figure. 34 years annual loss in this situation which at 2.5% discount was 23.01 years totalled £2,301. This becomes 38.75 years at -0.75% discount totalling £3,875. This is more than the anticipated loss at £100 per year for 34 years. Any claim with future losses has now increased in value. In some claims the increase is dramatic by hundreds of thousands of pounds.

Understandably this has not been popular with Defendants and we all accept that this is likely to alter again. The likelihood is that it will change to something which will still potentially mean a discount to the years claimed but one more likely to be balanced by investing the money and returning you to the position you would have been in, had the negligence never occurred.

This is a complicated issue but our solicitors always aim to explain in detail why and how they are claiming losses for you. If you think you may have a claim for compensation and in particular for future loss do not hesitate to call us and speak to one of our specialist clinical negligence solicitors on a free, no obligation, basis.

Joanne Dennison – March 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

Failure to consider x-ray leads to unnecessary death

Shirley Wise was admitted to hospital in the early hours of a Tuesday morning with diarrhoea and vomiting.  Her treating doctors thought she was suffering from gastroenteritis but requested that an abdominal x-ray be performed to rule out anything more sinister.  The x-ray was performed at around 9:30 that morning but no doctor looked at it.  Unfortunately, because nobody looked at it, it was missed that Mrs Wise was not suffering from gastroenteritis but from gallstone ileus, a condition where a gallstone had eroded through her gall bladder into her bowel.  Had this been picked up, she would have had emergency surgery to remove the gallstone.  Instead, she deteriorated and died in the early hours of Thursday morning.

A claim was brought by her daughter, Tracey Georgeson.  The hospital admitted fault very quickly and settlement was reached soon after.  This included compensation for Mrs Wise’s unnecessary suffering before her death as well as for funeral expenses and other miscellaneous items.

Ms Georgeson has been very keen to make the public aware of what can happen when things go wrong in hospital.  We put her in touch with a journalist from the Evening Gazette who ran a story about this incident last September, which they then updated recently (please click on the links below if you would like to read the articles).

http://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/teesside-news/daughters-heartache-over-alleged-hospital-11858518

http://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/teesside-news/grans-hospital-death-could-been-12516562

If you suspect you or a family member has been injured as a result of medical negligence and would like some advice on whether there is a claim to pursue, please do not hesitate to contact us on 01642 231110 and one of our solicitors will be happy to talk to you about your complaint.

Kathryn Watson – February 2017