Showing posts with label Kings Chambers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Kings Chambers. Show all posts

Tuesday, 13 May 2014

Clinical Negligence Quantum Updates

Courtesy of Helen Mulholland







CG v NIGDIKAR (2013) AM0202405

Lawtel reference: AM 0202405
Age of Claimant: 29
Injury: Severe blood loss following tooth extraction
Total Damages: £4,000
Damages for Pain, Suffering and Loss of Amenity: £4,000


The Claimant alleged that the Defendant performed an inappropriate extraction, as her INR was unstable. 

The Claimant was said to have experienced pain, discomfort and emotional stress as she had to be hospitalized for three days whilst her bleeding was brought under control. She was rendered anaemic (albeit temporarily) and required additional trips to her GP.


XV v MAYDAY HEALTHCARE NHS TRUST (2012)

Lawtel reference: AM 0202399
Age of Claimant: 31
Injury: wrongful birth claim
Total Damages: £2,300,000
Pain, Suffering and Loss of Amenity: £35,000

The Claimant’s partner’s family had a history of spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) and that she was concerned that her unborn child might have the condition. Although the midwife made a note of this, the Claimant was not offered an appointment with a consultant or any diagnostic test.
The Claimant’s baby was born with congenital spinal muscular atrophy. 
The Claimant’s evidence was that if she had been offered the test, she would have taken it and would have undergone further screening. She asserted that, after counselling, she would have opted to have a termination.

  

BLYTH v (1) NORTHERN LINCS & GOOLE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST (2) UNITED LINCS HOSPITALS NHS TRUST (2013)

Lawtel reference: AM0202382
Age of Claimant:, 23
Injury: ectopic pregnancy.
Total Damages: £5,500
Damages for Pain, Suffering and Loss of Amenity: £5,363.75


CS v NORTH YORKSHIRE & YORK PRIMARY CARE TRUST (2013) 

Lawtel reference: AM0202384
Age of Claimant: 69
Injury: pain and suffering following negligent hip replacement
Total Damages: £75,000
Damages for Pain, Suffering and Loss of Amenity: £35,000


The Claimant was said to have experienced severe pain and discomfort for a period of twelve months prior to revision surgery including numbness in her right side and numerous fallsand to have undergone an unnecessary hip revision.

SPENCER v ONCERIU (2013)

Lawtel reference: AM0202391
Age of Claimant: 60
Injury: tongue laceration during dental procedure
Total Damages: £902
Damages for Pain, Suffering and Loss of Amenity: £750

The duration of the injury was three weeks.




EK v BIRMINGHAM WOMEN'S NHS FOUNDATION TRUST (2013)

Lawtel reference: AM0202388
Age of Claimant: 32
Injury: failure to identify and treat internal bleeding and bruising leading to physical symptoms and psychiatric injury
Total Damages: £40,000
Damages for Pain, Suffering and Loss of Amenity: £37,000

The Claimant suffered a delay in internal bleeding being diagnosed and treated. Whilst she was suffering the symptoms of the bleed, she was scared and had a genuine belief that she would die.


PENDLEBURY v F & H (2013)

Lawtel reference: AM0202383
Age of Claimant: 55
Injury: failure to diagnose and treat periodontal disease
Total Damages: £35,000
Damages for Pain, Suffering and Loss of Amenity: £16,000

The Claimant suffered bone loss of 80% in UR5 UR4 UR2 UL4 and UL5. She had to have extractions of several teeth and underwent implant replacement.


TH v NORTH YORKSHIRE & YORK PRIMARY CARE TRUST (2012)

Lawtel reference: AM0202385
Age of Claimant: 67
Injury: pain and suffering following negligent hip replacement.
Total Damages: £100,000
Damages for Pain, Suffering and Loss of Amenity: £30,000

The Claimant suffered 20 months pain and suffering and had to undergo unnecessary revision surgery.



XXX v BARNET & CHASE FARM HOSPITAL NHS TRUST (2013)

Lawtel reference: AM0202374
Age of Claimant: 10
Injury: injuries following a failure to diagnose pneumococcal meningitis
Total Damages: lump sum of £2,900,000 plus periodical payments
Damages for Pain, Suffering and Loss of Amenity: £275,000

The Claimant suffered severe spastic quadriparetic cerebral palsy, epilepsy, sensorineural deafness and significant learning difficulties. The Claimant would require care for the rest of his life.


KA v DERBYSHIRE HEALTH UNITED (2013)


Lawtel reference: AM0202368
Age of Claimant: 22
Injury: injuries arising from failure to diagnose gastric perforation
Total Damages: £80,000
Damages for Pain, Suffering and Loss of Amenity: £40,000

The delay in diagnosis led to complications, including a chest and wound infection. The Claimant also had scarring, psychological injuries, and would potentially experience fertility problems in the future.


TMR v ROYAL DEVON & EXETER NHS FOUNDATION TRUST (2013)

Lawtel reference: AM0202371
Age of Claimant: 30
Injury: failure to carry out appendicectomy as part of surgical treatment for ovarian cancer
Total Damages: £8,500
Damages for Pain, Suffering and Loss of Amenity: £7,500

The Claimant underwent a total abdominal hysterectomy and removal of the remaining ovary followed by infra-colic omentectomy and paraaortic node sampling. She had been told that she would also require an appendicectomy But this was not in fact carried out.
The Claimant had to endure a third open surgery procedure, and thereafter spent weeks recuperating from this.


JLH v COUNTY DURHAM & DARLINGTON NHS FOUNDATION TRUST (2013)

Lawtel reference: AM0202372
Age of Claimant: N/A (Fatal Claim)
Injury: Post partum haemorrhage, hypothermia, hypovolaemia
Total Damages: £565,000
Damages for Pain, Suffering and Loss of Amenity: £17,000 (est)

At the inquest, the coroner gave a narrative verdict, stating that medical management of the postpartum haemorrhage, subsequent hypothermia and possible hypovolaemia, together with a lack of medical and midwifery communication, contributed to the Deceased’s subsequent medical complications which ultimately led to her death.
Claims were brought under the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934 and the Fatal Accidents Act 1976.


TH v THE LEEDS TEACHING HOSPITALS NHS TRUST (2013)

Lawtel reference: AM0202370
Age of Claimant: 58
Injury: pressure sore
Total Damages: £25,000
Damages for Pain, Suffering and Loss of Amenity: £23,000

The Claimant received poor post-operative care and developed a pressure sore which was said to be grade 2. It was dressed daily, but developed into a grade 3 lesion. The pressure sore gradually improved, but the Claimant was left with scarring and pain.


JN v (1) EAST CHESHIRE NHS TRUST (2) ST HELENS & KNOWSLEY TEACHING HOSPITALS NHS TRUST (2013)

Lawtel reference: AM0202373
Age of Claimant: 60
Injury: amputation of right leg
Total Damages: £1,100,000
Damages for Pain, Suffering and Loss of Amenity: £100,000


The Claimant was examined in November 2007 in the Defendant’s Emergency Department. She was seen by a senior house officer who did not note the pain in the Claimant’s legs or coldness of her feet (although the Claimant’s son later insisted that both he and C had provided such information). The Claimant claimed that there were further opportunities to identify vascular compromise that were missed.

The case settled without admission of liability.


TCM v WARDLE (2013)

Lawtel reference: AM0202376
Age of Claimant: 73
Injury: tongue laceration
Total Damages: £14,500
Damages for Pain, Suffering and Loss of Amenity: £12,000


The Claimant’s tongue was lacerated during a dental procedure. Liability was denied. The Claimant had permanent symptoms of paraesthesia and some psychological symptoms .


H v ANEURIN BEVAN LOCAL HEALTH BOARD (2013)

Lawtel reference: AM0202378
Age of Claimant: 40
Injury: delay of 11 days in diagnosing ulna fracture leading to surgical intervention
Total Damages: £1,500
Damages for Pain, Suffering and Loss of Amenity: £1,500




A v BEDFORD HOSPITAL NHS TRUST (2013)

Lawtel reference: AM0202377
Age of Claimant: 53
Injury: perforated bowel
Total Damages: £54,000
Damages for Pain, Suffering and Loss of Amenity: £35,000

AW v OXFORD UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS NHS TRUST (2012)

Lawtel reference: AM0202367
Age of Claimant: 46
Injury: severe bleeding (caused by administration of excessive heparin) which caused infection in the knee
Total Damages: £196,000
Damages for Pain, Suffering and Loss of Amenity: £40,000


The Claimant had significant knee symptoms for which she underwent a total knee replacement. Tests undertaken prior to surgery were said to confirm that she had antiphospholipid syndrome conferring a thrombotic tendency and that she needed to remain on warfarin for the rest of her life. It was stated that she needed 'good thromboprophylaxis' following a total knee replacement.



When the Claimant was admitted for her left total knee replacement, she underwent a heparin infusion and her records noted UFH 25,000 in 50ml. Following the operation, the heparin was stopped and C was noted to be feeling unwell and faint, and blood was oozing from her wound. C was subsequently transfused four units of blood and was seen by consultants. It was noted that C was feeling faint and light-headed and that there had been lots of fresh oozing from the wound overnight but there was no evidence of compartment syndrome. On investigation, it appeared highly likely that the post-operative syringe driver contained 125,000 units of UFH rather than 25,000 units and this would explain the over anticoagulation and bleeding.
The Claimant suffered pins and needles and blistering in the knee. She underwent blood transfusions. She developed an infection in the with sudden pain, redness and swelling of the left knee and was referred to hospital where she underwent a surgical washout and debridement.

The Defendant admitted breach of duty but disputed causation and the claim was settled. 



SZ v TEACHING HOSPITAL NHS TRUST (2013)

Lawtel reference: AM0202398
Age of Claimant: 27
Injury: paraplegia
Total Damages: £2,977,000 lump sum and periodical payments of £100,000 per annum rising to £154,000 after 10 years.
Damages for Pain, Suffering and Loss of Amenity: £220,000 

The Claimant underwent a pancreatic transplant aimed at managing his diabetes. Pain relief was to be managed via a spinal block, but the anaesthetist had difficulty inserting the Tuohy needle. At the third attempt, the Claimant’s spinal cord was damaged, rendering him paraplegic.

Liability was admitted.

The Claimant worked in a builders' merchants on a management trainee programme at the time of his injury. He had always worked in employment of a manual nature. C was therefore at significant disadvantage on the labour market and had failed to hold down any continuous employment at the date of settlement.


The Claimant needed to be urgently rehoused in a council property. Interim damages were thereafter sought to rehouse C in a property more appropriate to his needs.

The settlement was approved by the Court. The full breakdown is available on Lawtel.


NF (ON BEHALF OF THE ESTATE OF X DECEASED) v BLACKPOOL TEACHING HOSPITALS NHS FOUNDATION TRUST (2013)

Lawtel reference: AM0202397
Age of Claimant: N/A FAA CLAIM
Injury: pressure sores
Total Damages: £30,000
Damages for Pain, Suffering and Loss of Amenity: £10,000

The Claimant fell and fractured her left humerus whilst an inpatient. She had previously been assessed as having a high risk of falling. She developed several pressure ulcers on her body including one grade two ulcer on her sacrum. Her condition deteriorated and she died.



Thursday, 13 March 2014

End in Sight for DOLS

The end in sight for DOLS, asks Simon Burrows


In a somewhat damning report the House of Lords Select Committee has recommended a wholesale overhaul of those parts of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 that regulate the detention of mentally incapacitated people in hospitals and care homes. The report – see http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201314/ldselect/ldmentalcap/139/139.pdf

is scathing of the badly drafted Schedule A1 to the Act, introduced by the Mental Health Act 2007, which has attracted the title Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (or DOLS) although this has been seen as a misnomer by many in the relevant professions for some time. As the Committee makes clear, many who should be safeguarded are not and many thousands of incapacitated people may be detained in care homes and hospitals throughout the country with little or no legal safeguards to protect them.

The report comes a week before the Supreme Court hands down its judgment in what has become the seminal case in determining which people who are placed in supported living arrangements and, by implication, hospitals and care homes are in fact deprived of their liberty. It is hoped that P (by the Official Solicitor) v Cheshire West & Chester Council and P & Q (By the Official Solicitor) v Surrey County Council when handed down on Wednesday 19th March will clarify at least one difficult area that has led to the widespread misunderstanding that the House of Lords finds so prevalent.


Simon Burrows, who acted for P in the Cheshire West case from first instance to the Supreme Court, will provide another note on the judgment on Wednesday morning.

Sunday, 2 March 2014

Westminster CC-v-Sykes

Sam Karim of the Kings Healthcare Team writes about the recent Court of Protection decision in City Council v Sykes [2014] EWHC B9 (COP).

Although MS suffers from dementia and lacks capacity, there were sufficient factors to justify a trial period of home care rather than the deprivation of her liberty in a nursing home. The judgment was published and MS’s anonymity lifted in light of the public interest of the case and the personal characteristics of MS weighing in factor of such an outcome.

MS, an 89 year old who suffers dementia, was deprived of her liberty at QX Nursing Home by virtue of a standard authorisation granted by the local authority under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. MS repeatedly expressed her wish to return to her home in central London. On 19 September 2013, the court issued a section 21A application, by which the local authority asked the court to review the standard authorisation relating to MS. MS and her litigation friend’s opposed her MS’s placement in the nursing home.

The local authority highlighted problems experienced by MS leading up to her admission: lack of acceptable care, altercations with neighbours, self-neglect, unhygienic living conditions, wandering and a lack of awareness of personal safety.

HELD: Due to her dementia, MS lacked capacity to make relevant decisions for herself. There was only one requirement really in issue in relation to this case: that of the best interests of MS. This is an objective test, taking in a diverse range of factors. The task was to identify which of these factors should be compromised in the best interests of MS. The Court found that the risks involved in there being a one month home care trial period were acceptable and manageable, so as to justify a home care trial taking place. The local authority was to put a home care plan in place, along with plans for what would happen if the trial failed, or MS’s funding ran out.

The interference with MS’s home and private life was said to be prescribed by law, a proportionate means of dealing with the risks to MS and for the permitted purpose of attending to MS’s health.

The Court thus held that the standard authorisation would not extend after the point that MS returned home.

Anonymity/Reporting

The normal rule is that the anonymity of an incapacitated person and their family members should be preserved. Nonetheless, the Court held that there was good reason for this judgment to be published. The case involved matters of fundamental rights, such as deprivation of liberty and the rights of incapacitated persons, and there was a clear public interest in it being imparted.

It was appropriate to lift the veil of anonymity, although this was noted to be an unusual case in which the case for being named outweighed the usual anonymity. MS’s personal characteristics were said to be a critical factor, in particular, she always wished to be heard and would want to exert a political influence. By contrast, the family of MS, her nursing home and her professional carers could not be named unless they chose to name themselves. The local authority and experts could be named.



Sunday, 16 February 2014

Neglect Verdict at Article 2 Inquest into Suicide of Voluntary Patient


Kings Healthcare member, Rachel Galloway (instructed by JMW Solicitors), has recently represented the family at an inquest into the death of a voluntary mental patient.  








S had been admitted to the SAFIRE unit in Park House at North Manchester General Hospital.

After a 4 week (Article 2) inquest, the jury found that S had taken her own life whilst the balance of her mind was disturbed and that her death was contributed to by neglect.  The jury found that S suffered from schizophrenia and a personality disorder; she experienced auditory hallucinations.  S was assessed as being too high risk for continued care within the community and a Psychiatrist indicated that urgent inpatient treatment was required.  There was a delay in finding her a bed and S was not admitted to hospital for a further 8 days.  S accepted that she needed inpatient care and therefore she was not sectioned under the Mental Health Act.  She was not clerked in or seen by a doctor at any point during her stay.  She was commenced on "general observations".  

The jury found that she should have been put on "within arm's length" observations.  Within less than 48 hours of being admitted to hospital, S was found in a toilet having used a ligature to end her life.  In the afternoon before her death, she had handed into staff a ligature and a lighter and told them that she was hearing voices telling her to kill herself; these voices were increasingly difficult to resist.  Despite this, the level of observations was not increased.  When D was found with the ligature around her neck, ligature cutters could not be found and there were additional failures in respect of equipment.  However, it could not be said that her death would have been prevented had the ligature been removed earlier.  

The jury were specifically asked to consider the events which took place during the afternoon prior to S taking her own life and consider whether or not the care that had been provided amounted to a gross failure to provide basic medical attention to a person in a dependent position that was directly connected to her death.  The jury found that there had been such a gross failure and "neglect" was found accordingly. 

Friday, 14 February 2014

Court of Appeal - Meikeljohn-v-St Georges Healthcare

Notes on the Court of Appeal decision in Meikeljohn-v-St Georges

 By Nigel Poole QC


In Meikeljohn-v-St Georges Healthcare NHS Trust [2014] EWCA 120 Civ the Court of Appeal has firmly dismissed an appeal from a trial judge's finding that there was no negligence in the diagnosis and treatment of a rare genetic disorder. The first instance decision is here Three particular points of interest amongst a number of issues addressed in the judgment:

Standard of Care
First, the standard of care to be expected when the particular practitioner involved on behalf of the Defendant Trust was acting on a tertiary referral and was an expert of some repute. The Court of Appeal remarked that the Claimant had sought to raise the expected standard on appeal beyond that which had been accepted as applicable at trial, and which was the correct standard. The Court noted,
  1. It is now suggested that a top-layer should be imposed upon the standard against which Prof Marsh is to be measured with the addition of "a leader in the field of AA in the UK and who has an international renown".



Third, the Court was critical of the robust stance taken at trial to the Defendant's expert (Prof Cavenagh) and to the particular practitioner who had been responsible for the management of the Claimant (Prof Marsh). The basis for the criticism of Prof Cavenagh seems to be that he had treated the Claimant on referral after having accepted instructions to advise the Defendant in the litigation. As a litigator I would comment that that is an unusual situation to say the least. However the Claimant's condition was rare and this was an area of medical practice in which the experts in their field were nearly all familiar with each other - it was a small world. The circumstances of the expert's involvement did not seem to caused undue concern to an experienced first instance judge and the Court of Appeal:







Thursday, 13 February 2014

Sex and Secrecy

Kings Healthcare member, Adam Fullwood has recently appeared in two important cases involving the Court of Protection.



In IM-v-LM and AB & Liverpool City Council [2014] EWCA Civ 37 the Court of Appeal carried out a comprehensive review of the case law in relation to the question of capacity to consent to sex. The Court unanimously concluded that the test for determining capacity to engage in sexual relations was not "person specific" but required a much simpler issue or situation specific approach.

In RC-v-CC & X Locatl Authority [2014] EWHC 131 (COP) the President of the Court of Protection, Lord Justice Munby confirms that the test for disclosure is whether it is "strictly necessary" to deny disclosure as opposed to whether disclosure is strictly necessary. He also questioned the suggestion that disclosure could properly be made to counsel only.









Monday, 10 February 2014

Chambers UK Guide to the Bar

We are delighted to have enjoyed recognition in Chambers UK Guide to the Bar 2014.

Kings Chambers was the 3rd ranked set in the country for the number of  practice areas in which members were listed, and was the 9th ranked chambers in the country for total barrister rankings.



We were one of only two chambers on the Northern Circuit to be ranked for clinical negligence work and several members received praise for their healthcare law work.

The Guide said:

"Kings Chambers' barristers act for claimants and defendants in relation to a broad range of clinical negligence issues, with recent instructions including neo-natal negligence, cosmetic surgery and psychiatric negligence cases. Solicitors characterise it as an "innovative" and "forward-thinking" set with a well-organised and "approachable" clerking team."

"The clerks bend over backwards to sort things out for you."

"Kings Chambers is widely considered the leading set for administrative and public law matters on the Northern Circuit ... The set's public law team are acknowledged experts across a wide range of issues such as local authority decisions, planning disputes, social welfare, healthcare and equality law."


Ranked barristers in the team are:

Nicholas Braslavsky QC: "He has a sharp and analytical mind and is an excellent advocate."

Nigel Poole QC: "Receives glowing praise ... combines a client-friendly approach with a fantastic intellect."

Simon Burrows: "... very charismatic, has a good sense of humour and is very persuasive. An excellent and intelligent opponent..."

Sarah Pritchard: "approachable, practical, good in round table meetings and quick to get to the heart of a case."

Adam Fullwood: "He is impressive in court and very friendly towards clients. He is fair, straight-talking and very knowledgeable..."

Jeremy Roussak: "...highly sought after to appear in cases involving complicated medical issues..."

Melanie Plimmer: "Receives strong praise for her handling of administrative and public law matters ... extremely articulate in court..."

Helen Mulholland: "client-friendly, bright and innovative... brave and tenacious."

Stephen Maguire: "Praised for his courtroom demeanour and practical approach..."

Claire Steward: "Receives glowing praise from instructing solicitors. She is commended for her sensitive approach and ability to handle complex cases."

Sam Karim: "He is very passionate about what he does and is a good advocate."

Charlotte Law: "Sources admire her committed and diligent approach ... methodical and thorough. Clients love her."

Stephen McNamara: "... very astute for his level of call and picks up issues quickly. He is very down to earth and good with clients."








Welcome

Specialist. Accessible. Committed.


Kings Chambers Clinical Negligence and Healthcare team offers expert advocacy and advice in many areas of healthcare law. Our barristers practise in the fields of Negligence, Court of Protection, Mental Health, GMC, Inquests and Inquiries, Human Rights and Public Law.






Nine of our members are currently ranked for clinical negligence by Chambers UK Guide. Four others for their Court of Protection, Human Rights and Public Law expertise.

We offer specialist barristers at all levels of experience.

We want to use this blog to share our news and views.

You can visit our web page here and find out about members of our team and the services we offer. We aim to be accessible and invite you to make contact with members of our team by e-mail.

To book a member of the team or for general enquiries, please contact our clerks:

Steve Loxton for Clinical Negligence, Inquests, Inquires and Regulatory matters.


sloxton@kingschambers.com




Mark Ronson for other Healthcare matters.

mronson@kingschambers.com