£1.2 million for growing tall...!?
Discussion
davepoth said:
And we haven't seen a confirmed picture of this girl to know how she's been afflicted. It could be that she is just very tall. I was making the point that being six and a half feet tall doesn't make one ugly.
I understand, but the story also mentioned bone abnormalities.Now I thought the picture was quite nice, but we don't know when it was taken, and we don't know where these bone abnormalities occurred on the girl. If she does have these it may be that she could need carers in later life due to issues caused by acromegaly, or maybe not.
The case report is here. It is probably a better source that the Daily Mail or BBC etc
http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/c...
http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/c...
johnfm said:
The case report is here. It is probably a better source that the Daily Mail or BBC etc
http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/c...
Absolutely. Setting all the media froth for a momenthttp://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/c...
case report said:
EVIDENCE FROM THE ORTHOPAEDIC SURGEONS
The Court has received evidence from two consultant orthopaedic surgeons, Professor Mulholland and Mr Bradish. Their evidence is now the subject of agreement, which is the basis of my findings, and there is in addition to their own reports a joint statement and a further letter from Professor Mulholland dated 1st July 2012 and further short joint report from them dated 3rd July 2012.
The Claimant already suffers from painful symptoms of low back pain which affects her after exertion or, for example, after periods of stooping over the kitchen worktops, kitchen sink and appliances in her home. She can alleviate her pain by taking anti-inflammatory tablets and paracetamol but this may not prove to be an effective remedy as time goes by. A major part of this claim is in respect of the extent to which her physical condition will deteriorate during the remainder of her life and the extensive medical treatment which she will require in order to maintain her health and to be able to enjoy those amenities of life which will be available to her.
Professor Mulholland and Mr Bradish agree that there is already very severe radiological abnormality throughout the Claimant's spine with disc degeneration at all levels, particularly at the lumbar-thoracic junction. I find this to be a serious condition which affects a woman of only 20 years of age. Further details are contained in the joint report, and are summarised by the experts who say that such changes in such a young woman represent very severe changes and are entirely due to a combination of acromegaly and gigantism. These two conditions, together with damage to the hypothalamus which will lead to obesity, will cause very significant progression in her spinal abnormalities which will inevitably become significantly symptomatic. The two consultant orthopaedic surgeons conclude that by her early forties the Claimant will have a significant spinal problem which may manifest itself in two ways. First, she will probably develop persistent and disabling back pain and restriction of movement. Second there is a more than probable risk that she will develop spinal stenosis (narrowing of the spinal column which puts pressure on the spinal cord) although they cannot estimate with accuracy when that will occur or how severe its symptoms may be but they believe that the risk of it occurring is more than 50%. If it does occur it is likely to affect her lumbar region and there is a risk, although they suggest a lower risk, that it will affect the thoracic region also. Their joint estimate is that if stenosis occurs it is likely to be when she is in her late forties and at that stage she will require surgical treatment. There is little if any medical literature on the subject of stenosis in the case of acromegaly, gigantism and obesity. They jointly observe that what was so disastrous in this case was that the gigantism went undiagnosed in childhood and this led to her developing acromegaly in adulthood. The likely prognosis of symptomatology is that there will be progressive restriction in her walking ability due to leg and back pain and related spinal stenosis. Changes in the thoracic spine may lead to spinal cord compression which would, if untreated, potentially lead to gait disturbance and the risk of bowel and bladder problems. The treatment for spinal stenosis is spinal decompression but if the Claimant's weight is not controlled adequately her obesity would present an obstacle to this type of treatment.
The orthopaedic experts jointly report that the Claimant is more than 50% likely to develop premature hip osteoarthritis in her mid 40's which may result in her having to undergo bilateral hip replacements. They believe she is also likely to develop premature knee degeneration in her forties and knee joint replacement surgery may have to be performed.
The Claimant is also at risk of developing median nerve injury which would result in pain and disability in the hand and which may require nerve root decompression.
Upon the agreed evidence I find that the Claimant is disposed to premature disc degeneration (acromegalic spinal arthropathy) for which no surgery will be available and this will inevitably lead to back pain which will become persistent and require pain relief. By the time she is in her forties she may be 30% - 40% disabled on the Oswestry scale. She already has intermittent discomfort in her back and knees. Mr Bradish says that there is likely to be an acceleration by 10-20 years of osteoarthritic changes in her spine, knees and hips.
Professor Mulholland and Mr Bradish have agreed that regular MRI scans on her spine should be carried out every 4-5 years. They agree that eventually she may require the use of a non-motorised wheelchair and a motorised scooter but they do not envisage the need for a motorised wheelchair and a motorised scooter.
She'll be screwed by her mid 40s by the sound of it.The Court has received evidence from two consultant orthopaedic surgeons, Professor Mulholland and Mr Bradish. Their evidence is now the subject of agreement, which is the basis of my findings, and there is in addition to their own reports a joint statement and a further letter from Professor Mulholland dated 1st July 2012 and further short joint report from them dated 3rd July 2012.
The Claimant already suffers from painful symptoms of low back pain which affects her after exertion or, for example, after periods of stooping over the kitchen worktops, kitchen sink and appliances in her home. She can alleviate her pain by taking anti-inflammatory tablets and paracetamol but this may not prove to be an effective remedy as time goes by. A major part of this claim is in respect of the extent to which her physical condition will deteriorate during the remainder of her life and the extensive medical treatment which she will require in order to maintain her health and to be able to enjoy those amenities of life which will be available to her.
Professor Mulholland and Mr Bradish agree that there is already very severe radiological abnormality throughout the Claimant's spine with disc degeneration at all levels, particularly at the lumbar-thoracic junction. I find this to be a serious condition which affects a woman of only 20 years of age. Further details are contained in the joint report, and are summarised by the experts who say that such changes in such a young woman represent very severe changes and are entirely due to a combination of acromegaly and gigantism. These two conditions, together with damage to the hypothalamus which will lead to obesity, will cause very significant progression in her spinal abnormalities which will inevitably become significantly symptomatic. The two consultant orthopaedic surgeons conclude that by her early forties the Claimant will have a significant spinal problem which may manifest itself in two ways. First, she will probably develop persistent and disabling back pain and restriction of movement. Second there is a more than probable risk that she will develop spinal stenosis (narrowing of the spinal column which puts pressure on the spinal cord) although they cannot estimate with accuracy when that will occur or how severe its symptoms may be but they believe that the risk of it occurring is more than 50%. If it does occur it is likely to affect her lumbar region and there is a risk, although they suggest a lower risk, that it will affect the thoracic region also. Their joint estimate is that if stenosis occurs it is likely to be when she is in her late forties and at that stage she will require surgical treatment. There is little if any medical literature on the subject of stenosis in the case of acromegaly, gigantism and obesity. They jointly observe that what was so disastrous in this case was that the gigantism went undiagnosed in childhood and this led to her developing acromegaly in adulthood. The likely prognosis of symptomatology is that there will be progressive restriction in her walking ability due to leg and back pain and related spinal stenosis. Changes in the thoracic spine may lead to spinal cord compression which would, if untreated, potentially lead to gait disturbance and the risk of bowel and bladder problems. The treatment for spinal stenosis is spinal decompression but if the Claimant's weight is not controlled adequately her obesity would present an obstacle to this type of treatment.
The orthopaedic experts jointly report that the Claimant is more than 50% likely to develop premature hip osteoarthritis in her mid 40's which may result in her having to undergo bilateral hip replacements. They believe she is also likely to develop premature knee degeneration in her forties and knee joint replacement surgery may have to be performed.
The Claimant is also at risk of developing median nerve injury which would result in pain and disability in the hand and which may require nerve root decompression.
Upon the agreed evidence I find that the Claimant is disposed to premature disc degeneration (acromegalic spinal arthropathy) for which no surgery will be available and this will inevitably lead to back pain which will become persistent and require pain relief. By the time she is in her forties she may be 30% - 40% disabled on the Oswestry scale. She already has intermittent discomfort in her back and knees. Mr Bradish says that there is likely to be an acceleration by 10-20 years of osteoarthritic changes in her spine, knees and hips.
Professor Mulholland and Mr Bradish have agreed that regular MRI scans on her spine should be carried out every 4-5 years. They agree that eventually she may require the use of a non-motorised wheelchair and a motorised scooter but they do not envisage the need for a motorised wheelchair and a motorised scooter.
I guarantee the constant pain my Mother is in is far worse than this woman will ever feel. Couple this with the deteriorating condition she has been given (all by the NHS), plus other complications, this story unsurprisingly pisses me off no end.
I'm a big supporter of the NHS (when it does well, and does often). This woman needs to MTFU and maybe give a little bit to charity.
Apologies for the off-topic rant, but I clearly need to get it off my chest
I'm a big supporter of the NHS (when it does well, and does often). This woman needs to MTFU and maybe give a little bit to charity.
Apologies for the off-topic rant, but I clearly need to get it off my chest
Stedman said:
I guarantee the constant pain my Mother is in is far worse than this woman will ever feel. Couple this with the deteriorating condition she has been given (all by the NHS), plus other complications, this story unsurprisingly pisses me off no end.
I'm a big supporter of the NHS (when it does well, and does often). This woman needs to MTFU and maybe give a little bit to charity.
Apologies for the off-topic rant, but I clearly need to get it off my chest
Your Mum should sue. I'm a big supporter of the NHS (when it does well, and does often). This woman needs to MTFU and maybe give a little bit to charity.
Apologies for the off-topic rant, but I clearly need to get it off my chest
Halb said:
It's what I suspected.
Sad.
It is indeed sad. But then people are afflicted with all sorts of sad stuff all the time.Sad.
A condition was missed. Whether this was outright "negligence" or not we do not know (cynical of me, but I don not believe the awarding of compensation necessarily means anything), but surely there has to be an allowance for mistakes happening? And should all those knock on symptoms happen, I would guess that treatments for all of them will be on the NHS?
So what does the 1.2m cover?
If there was no NHS, the condition would almost certainly not have been spotted and when the onset of these consequences happened there would be no NHS to help address and alleviate them. The more people who take 1.2m out of the system, the more likely it is that things like this will not be spotted in future.
It would be interesting to see how "negligence" was adjudged. What wasn't spotted that should have been etc.
Murph7355 said:
Halb said:
It's what I suspected.
Sad.
It is indeed sad. But then people are afflicted with all sorts of sad stuff all the time.Sad.
A condition was missed. Whether this was outright "negligence" or not we do not know (cynical of me, but I don not believe the awarding of compensation necessarily means anything), but surely there has to be an allowance for mistakes happening? And should all those knock on symptoms happen, I would guess that treatments for all of them will be on the NHS?
So what does the 1.2m cover?
If there was no NHS, the condition would almost certainly not have been spotted and when the onset of these consequences happened there would be no NHS to help address and alleviate them. The more people who take 1.2m out of the system, the more likely it is that things like this will not be spotted in future.
It would be interesting to see how "negligence" was adjudged. What wasn't spotted that should have been etc.
I have linked to the ruling. If you bother to click the link you will see a line by line summary of the award.
Do you want me to call you and read it out for you?
Murph7355 said:
So what does the 1.2m cover?
Read the report john posted, there's a handy table at the bottom with a breakdown. The judgement is more verbose in how the figures were attributed if you're interested in the detailMurph7355 said:
It would be interesting to see how "negligence" was adjudged.
Negligence was not adjudged. The NHS admits negligence.case report said:
The Claimant alleges, and the Defendant admits, that the Defendant negligently failed to diagnose and then to treat the pituitary tumour for more than three years and that as a result of that failure the Claimant grew both in height and frame to a size which considerably exceeds what would have been expected.
Edited by Marf on Sunday 5th August 22:39
Stedman said:
I guarantee the constant pain my Mother is in is far worse than this woman will ever feel. Couple this with the deteriorating condition she has been given (all by the NHS), plus other complications, this story unsurprisingly pisses me off no end.
I'm a big supporter of the NHS (when it does well, and does often). This woman needs to MTFU and maybe give a little bit to charity.
Apologies for the off-topic rant, but I clearly need to get it off my chest
What has your mum's issue got to do with another patient's award?I'm a big supporter of the NHS (when it does well, and does often). This woman needs to MTFU and maybe give a little bit to charity.
Apologies for the off-topic rant, but I clearly need to get it off my chest
If your mum is suffering as a result of negligent treatment, get a decent medical negligence lawyer and make a claim.
Or maybe your mum should MTFU?*
- This line added merely to illustrate how absurd your position is.
davepoth said:
Marf said:
She'll be screwed by her mid 40s by the sound of it.
Very sad indeed. The way that the figure was arrived at is rather interesting though.Most of it seems rather straight forward. The judge even wrote a large paragraph calling for balance in the award.
case report said:
My assessment is that the Claimant's life has undoubtedly been severely affected to a very great extent and will always be very different from what she might otherwise reasonably have expected to look forward to. That will result in a substantial award. I do not in any way diminish the range and the breadth of ways in which her life has been altered but I must keep a sense of perspective. This claimant has the use of all her limbs and all five physical senses. She is intellectually capable of undertaking a full time undergraduate course studying for an Honours degree which she hopes will lead her into employment or self employment in the creative world of script writing. She shows initiative and determination and has the impetus to seek opportunities for herself. She is motivated to enter into a career, and to maintain as far as she can some control over her weight by a combination of strict dieting and taking exercise. She has a circle of friends and a modest social life. She is able to drive a car. She envisages making her life in London where there may be the greatest range of opportunities within the world of writing for the entertainment media. She hopes, in the next ten years or so, to be able (after necessary fertility treatment) to have one or two children. Whether that will be possible or not will depend upon many factors which I cannot predict, but I can take note of the fact that that is what she would like to do. When I balance the many adverse consequences (past, present and future) against those positive aspects of her life I do not find that the effect of her condition is or will be as catastrophic as that which is associated with awards of damages in the region of £150,000.
Edited by Marf on Sunday 5th August 22:45
Marf said:
davepoth said:
Marf said:
She'll be screwed by her mid 40s by the sound of it.
Very sad indeed. The way that the figure was arrived at is rather interesting though.davepoth said:
Marf said:
davepoth said:
Marf said:
She'll be screwed by her mid 40s by the sound of it.
Very sad indeed. The way that the figure was arrived at is rather interesting though.johnfm said:
...
Do you want me to call you and read it out for you?
No, no. If you could précis it and type it up here it would be preferable thanks.Do you want me to call you and read it out for you?
Apologies, I missed the link - I really do wish it had stayed that way though.
There is some mental stuff in that judgement when you consider that this is taxpayer funds that are being chucked around.
There don't seem to be any details on the circumstances of the admitted negligence (though I admit I haven't ready every single word). I wonder how much of it was their legal eagles simply not wanting to fight it.
I also hope that someone monitors very carefully that the money awarded is actually spent on what it was awarded for. Much of it is for private treatments. The general basis on why these are made in the way they are bemuses me, but I very much hope that any future request for these treatments by her on the NHS are wholly rejected (irrespective of whether others are eligible on the NHS).
And when I read things around no's 137/138 in the document I realise it's no wonder the govt spend what they do in this country. I wonder how much the taxpayer was billed for all the debate on whether a Vauxhall Astra is adequate for someone of her size and whether a Vauxhall Insignia was youthful enough or not.
Absolutely and utterly fecking ridiculous.
Murph7355 said:
No, no. If you could précis it and type it up here it would be preferable thanks.
Apologies, I missed the link - I really do wish it had stayed that way though.
There is some mental stuff in that judgement when you consider that this is taxpayer funds that are being chucked around.
There don't seem to be any details on the circumstances of the admitted negligence (though I admit I haven't ready every single word). I wonder how much of it was their legal eagles simply not wanting to fight it.
I also hope that someone monitors very carefully that the money awarded is actually spent on what it was awarded for. Much of it is for private treatments. The general basis on why these are made in the way they are bemuses me, but I very much hope that any future request for these treatments by her on the NHS are wholly rejected (irrespective of whether others are eligible on the NHS).
And when I read things around no's 137/138 in the document I realise it's no wonder the govt spend what they do in this country. I wonder how much the taxpayer was billed for all the debate on whether a Vauxhall Astra is adequate for someone of her size and whether a Vauxhall Insignia was youthful enough or not.
Absolutely and utterly fecking ridiculous.
Well, re: the admission of negligence, I expect there would have been quite a bit of argument over that - but not in this court.Apologies, I missed the link - I really do wish it had stayed that way though.
There is some mental stuff in that judgement when you consider that this is taxpayer funds that are being chucked around.
There don't seem to be any details on the circumstances of the admitted negligence (though I admit I haven't ready every single word). I wonder how much of it was their legal eagles simply not wanting to fight it.
I also hope that someone monitors very carefully that the money awarded is actually spent on what it was awarded for. Much of it is for private treatments. The general basis on why these are made in the way they are bemuses me, but I very much hope that any future request for these treatments by her on the NHS are wholly rejected (irrespective of whether others are eligible on the NHS).
And when I read things around no's 137/138 in the document I realise it's no wonder the govt spend what they do in this country. I wonder how much the taxpayer was billed for all the debate on whether a Vauxhall Astra is adequate for someone of her size and whether a Vauxhall Insignia was youthful enough or not.
Absolutely and utterly fecking ridiculous.
Re: the other stuff - that is the law. If you ever read any of the thousands of judgements that shape and make precedent in the UK much of it is like this - very exacting, considered and....tedious.
Reading some of the Hillsborough stuff is weird - when they get into decisions about remoteness etc, it all gets very, very, very drawn out.
johnfm said:
....tedious....
It's not so much the tedium, but some of the logic being used, and even entering into any sort of debate about some of this stuff that grates when you consider the state this country's finances are in.She was being given, at the expense of other public services, a new car every 4 years. And had the temerity to suggest that the sort of car being offered (NB not the one she had to actually buy, just to try and set a cost) wasn't youthful enough? With that and the actress angle, is a judge not capable of saying "you sound like you're taking the piss here. Is the concern your well being or maximising some free money?".
The whole "...if you could afford to do so, would you have had private medical treatment, and if the answer is yes the govt will ensure you are able to afford it..." also seems wholly wrong to me. If she had been able to afford it, perhaps she should have gone private in the first place and maybe (stress maybe) her medical outcome would have been different. If not, then address any consequential problems as they happen through the service she turned to in the first place - the cost of it will be covered so no need for money to exchange hands.
If the consequences result in items being needed that are not/cannot be provided on the NHS, then maybe fair enough. Though again I think our expectations of a "free" service are in severe need of a reset.
Murph7355 said:
johnfm said:
....tedious....
It's not so much the tedium, but some of the logic being used, and even entering into any sort of debate about some of this stuff that grates when you consider the state this country's finances are in.She was being given, at the expense of other public services, a new car every 4 years. And had the temerity to suggest that the sort of car being offered (NB not the one she had to actually buy, just to try and set a cost) wasn't youthful enough? With that and the actress angle, is a judge not capable of saying "you sound like you're taking the piss here. Is the concern your well being or maximising some free money?".
The whole "...if you could afford to do so, would you have had private medical treatment, and if the answer is yes the govt will ensure you are able to afford it..." also seems wholly wrong to me. If she had been able to afford it, perhaps she should have gone private in the first place and maybe (stress maybe) her medical outcome would have been different. If not, then address any consequential problems as they happen through the service she turned to in the first place - the cost of it will be covered so no need for money to exchange hands.
If the consequences result in items being needed that are not/cannot be provided on the NHS, then maybe fair enough. Though again I think our expectations of a "free" service are in severe need of a reset.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff