How to pursue a medical negligence claim?
Discussion
aw51 121565 said:
Funny thing is, GPs have insurance for just this kind of thing; they pay quite a lot for this cover every year, and it is absurd to say that a successful claim against a medical professional takes funds from the NHS.
I'd also have an interest in what a complaint to the Physio in the OP's situation might reveal
. But always complain formally to a GP Practice (or to the employer of any other medical professional) before attempting to take them to the cleaners (on a no-win-no-fee basis) - you never know how they might drop themselves in it in the subsequent claim 
.
Background:
I'm getting towards the end of a medical negligence claim on behalf of my late wife. She had ENT surgery at the end of 2012, wasn't the same again and collapsed a month later after a steady deterioration - history subsequently dictates that she had meningitis then a small stroke. A complaint to the two GPs who attended her post-surgery and before her collapse resulted in two seperate replies stating specifically that they did not suspect meningitis - cue hollow laughter, as they both wrote this again after a further complaint with more medical details included...
Bit of a fundamental error there, as my wife was presenting with temporal headache and stiffness of the neck for a month - both of which are 'red flag' symptoms of meningitis, as was her fever, and all together would justify an immediate hospital admission with "suspected meningitis". Coupled with other symptoms she was also presenting with, it is basic stuff.
Three days before she collapsed, she was diagnosed with Norovirus by the second GP... The first GP never gave a meaningful diagnosis.
The first GP also wrote in my late wife's GP Record - three weeks before she collapsed, two weeks after the surgery - that there was no photophobia (my info: a classic symptom of childhood meningitis, along with the rash which doesn't disappear when a glass is pressed into it as well as a headache, but symptoms of adult meningitis can be more varied yet include photophobia), so he is mistaken in later saying twice that he did not suspect meningitis... Imagine having to fight *that* in court
.
But as an exemplar in complaining before taking legal advice, it has been insightful . Line your ducks up/set your stall out before taking legal advice 
.
I'm very sorry to hear about what happened to your late wife, but your attempt at arrogance merely highlights your ignorance. I'd also have an interest in what a complaint to the Physio in the OP's situation might reveal
. But always complain formally to a GP Practice (or to the employer of any other medical professional) before attempting to take them to the cleaners (on a no-win-no-fee basis) - you never know how they might drop themselves in it in the subsequent claim .Background:
I'm getting towards the end of a medical negligence claim on behalf of my late wife. She had ENT surgery at the end of 2012, wasn't the same again and collapsed a month later after a steady deterioration - history subsequently dictates that she had meningitis then a small stroke. A complaint to the two GPs who attended her post-surgery and before her collapse resulted in two seperate replies stating specifically that they did not suspect meningitis - cue hollow laughter, as they both wrote this again after a further complaint with more medical details included...
Bit of a fundamental error there, as my wife was presenting with temporal headache and stiffness of the neck for a month - both of which are 'red flag' symptoms of meningitis, as was her fever, and all together would justify an immediate hospital admission with "suspected meningitis". Coupled with other symptoms she was also presenting with, it is basic stuff.
Three days before she collapsed, she was diagnosed with Norovirus by the second GP... The first GP never gave a meaningful diagnosis.
The first GP also wrote in my late wife's GP Record - three weeks before she collapsed, two weeks after the surgery - that there was no photophobia (my info: a classic symptom of childhood meningitis, along with the rash which doesn't disappear when a glass is pressed into it as well as a headache, but symptoms of adult meningitis can be more varied yet include photophobia), so he is mistaken in later saying twice that he did not suspect meningitis... Imagine having to fight *that* in court
. But as an exemplar in complaining before taking legal advice, it has been insightful
. Line your ducks up/set your stall out before taking legal advice .Of course GPs have to pay for indemnity, but if they didn't have to pay so much it could be reinvested into patient care. A GP practice of around 10,000 patients may pay in excess of £40,000 for indemnity per year.
Im also sorry to say that I disagree with your assessment that the manner in which your wife's condition presented was not in any way 'basic stuff' as you proclaim.
Osinjak said:
singlecoil said:
Osinjak said:
Insurance pays out, not the NHS.
That's a very simplistic view, if you don't mind me saying so.Ehlers Danlos Syndrome can be very difficult to diagnose, particularly if the patient has has one of the less severe forms where the more "classical" signs are very subtle. In addition, I can categorically say not all patients are diagnosed by late teens/early 20s. I have operated on the hearts and aortas of several who were only suspected of Ehlers Danlos when their aorta dissected in their 30s or 40s.
The hip issue you're describing may not related to EDS and it's difficult to comment without further information. What precisely have you been told regarding the problem with the hip joint? Is it EDS related hip dysplasia or was it something like slipped upper femoral epiphysis, Perthe's etc.?
The person you should speak to is not a solicitor, unless all you want to know is if and how much money you can make by suing. If you wish to know whether the errors and the missed diagnosis were made despite reasonable efforts, then you should speak to an independent, non-specialist doctor (specialists are generally too biased about what is common/unreasonable to miss, and what is not) who can review her entire history along with the medical notes. It is very difficult to comment without that information.
The hip issue you're describing may not related to EDS and it's difficult to comment without further information. What precisely have you been told regarding the problem with the hip joint? Is it EDS related hip dysplasia or was it something like slipped upper femoral epiphysis, Perthe's etc.?
The person you should speak to is not a solicitor, unless all you want to know is if and how much money you can make by suing. If you wish to know whether the errors and the missed diagnosis were made despite reasonable efforts, then you should speak to an independent, non-specialist doctor (specialists are generally too biased about what is common/unreasonable to miss, and what is not) who can review her entire history along with the medical notes. It is very difficult to comment without that information.
Thanks QQ - we're well aware of the challenges of diagnosing EDS!
Hips show excessive femoral antiversion, including signals such as toe in stance, twisted knees, etc. It would seem that this diagnosis should have been straightforward, and made when she was in her late teens after seeing GPs regularly about hip/knee issues for some years.
OH was presenting with hip/knee issues long before EDS diagnosis - at that point she was told there was nothing wrong and it was all in her head...
We'll request her full medical file, and have a conversation with her current (very responsive) GP.
Hips show excessive femoral antiversion, including signals such as toe in stance, twisted knees, etc. It would seem that this diagnosis should have been straightforward, and made when she was in her late teens after seeing GPs regularly about hip/knee issues for some years.
OH was presenting with hip/knee issues long before EDS diagnosis - at that point she was told there was nothing wrong and it was all in her head...
We'll request her full medical file, and have a conversation with her current (very responsive) GP.
That's the sensible thing to do. I couldn't comment on the initial diagnostic signs for your wife as I'm not a GP, just a cardiothoracic surgeon, so I wouldn't be able to say what would be the expected standard for a GP. Having said that, I have spent the last three and a half years out of surgery and dealing with ultra-rare genetic diseases. To my surprise, diagnostic delays of 30-40 years were not uncommon even in the presence of "classic" signs, mainly because those signs are often present in many other, much more common disorders.
Whatever you do, don't rush into any decisions and try to ignore those who have a strong opinion in either direction without all the facts; that's often the sign of bias and prejudice.
Most importantly, good luck to Katherine (and you of course, it won't be easy for you either) with the upcoming surgery and the long period of rehabilitation after that. Feel free to pm me if you want to ask questions without going public.
Whatever you do, don't rush into any decisions and try to ignore those who have a strong opinion in either direction without all the facts; that's often the sign of bias and prejudice.
Most importantly, good luck to Katherine (and you of course, it won't be easy for you either) with the upcoming surgery and the long period of rehabilitation after that. Feel free to pm me if you want to ask questions without going public.
Osinjak said:
singlecoil said:
I'm not saying the state should have immunity, I'm saying that whatever money it pays out in such cases is less money for treating other people.
The state doesn't have an endless supply of money.
Insurance pays out, not the NHS.The state doesn't have an endless supply of money.
singlecoil said:
GT03ROB said:
If you were to go into hospital to have an ingrown toe nail removed & they took both legs off so you couldn't work, you'd shrug your shoulders & say better they treat someone else, I'll live on benefits for the rest of my life?
You've taken more meaning from what I wrote than was actually in it. I don't disagree that people should be compensated if they suffer as a result of medical negligence, but I also think people should get all the medical care that they need, and I'm sure you agree with that.
As we already agree that the NHS doesn't have all the money necessary to do both these things, the discussion then has to be about who should get how much, as it's common ground that everybody can't get everything they need.
If I were in the OP's position, I'd speak to my solicitor. If they didn't feel able to handle the matter, I'd trust them to put me in touch with a specialist. I'd expect they'd pay a doctor to give an independent opinion and then potentially get advice from a barrister specialising in that area.
The fact your wife has experienced a very terrible unfortunate situation is not grounds for compensation, you need to show actual negligence. I cannot see any negligence in a failure to spot a condition described as 'rare', especially since several doctors seemed to show the same oversight. I don't see how it can possibly pass the Clapham omnibus man test.
singlecoil said:
Duty of care granted, but financial compensation surely has to be balanced with the needs of other patients. The more money paid out to someone whose care was less than it should have been, the less available for the care of others.
I don't know about the merits of the OP's partner's case, but she would not be doing other patients any favours by ignoring her (possibly) sub-standard care. Brits have a strong urge to "not make a fuss" and this doesn't help organisations like the NHS improve.SrMoreno said:
singlecoil said:
Duty of care granted, but financial compensation surely has to be balanced with the needs of other patients. The more money paid out to someone whose care was less than it should have been, the less available for the care of others.
I don't know about the merits of the OP's partner's case, but she would not be doing other patients any favours by ignoring her (possibly) sub-standard care. Brits have a strong urge to "not make a fuss" and this doesn't help organisations like the NHS improve. I do often wonder if doctors actually read notes and make a decision based on previous remarks.
Something that highlighted this for me was a couple of years ago I had a lens implant under the NHS.
The whole operation and aftercare was excellent. However, after I had seen the specialist a few times, I was then handed over to junior doctors. My history showed that 15 years previously I had kidney stones and have a reaction to one or 2 things. One of the tablets specifically states under no circumstances give this to those that have or had kidney stones. Yet, even with these notes, they were prescribed and a late night trip to emergency resulted with two shots of morphine.
If indeed there were multiple cases of misdiagnosis, then I would be expecting the previous notes to be examined and a bloody good explanation as to why it was missed.
Its easy to say suck it up buttercup, but when its affected the best years of your life and need not have, you'd be pretty damn pissed off.
Something that highlighted this for me was a couple of years ago I had a lens implant under the NHS.
The whole operation and aftercare was excellent. However, after I had seen the specialist a few times, I was then handed over to junior doctors. My history showed that 15 years previously I had kidney stones and have a reaction to one or 2 things. One of the tablets specifically states under no circumstances give this to those that have or had kidney stones. Yet, even with these notes, they were prescribed and a late night trip to emergency resulted with two shots of morphine.
If indeed there were multiple cases of misdiagnosis, then I would be expecting the previous notes to be examined and a bloody good explanation as to why it was missed.
Its easy to say suck it up buttercup, but when its affected the best years of your life and need not have, you'd be pretty damn pissed off.
4x4Tyke said:
The fact your wife has experienced a very terrible unfortunate situation is not grounds for compensation, you need to show actual negligence. I cannot see any negligence in a failure to spot a condition described as 'rare', especially since several doctors seemed to show the same oversight. I don't see how it can possibly pass the Clapham omnibus man test.
As docs on here have said, the EDS is the rare, difficult to diagnose condition.The femoral antiversion isn't either, yet has been missed for years.
I'm by no means suggesting that it's a clear legal case, or even if there is a case to answer. We will however be finding out.
Osinjak said:
singlecoil said:
I'm not saying the state should have immunity, I'm saying that whatever money it pays out in such cases is less money for treating other people.
The state doesn't have an endless supply of money.
Insurance pays out, not the NHS.The state doesn't have an endless supply of money.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff