Alleged failure to follow up and provide treatment leads to compensation settlement

We were pleased to represent J on a no win no fee basis. Whilst she never received the explanation and apology she wanted so badly, at last she can move on from a very upsetting episode.

J had a  history of continence problems and was referred by her GP to her local urology department.

In June 2012, having been assessed, J underwent renal ultrasound scanning which revealed a probable calculus in her left kidney.

Unfortunately for J the stone fell into her ureter causing an obstruction, infection in her kidney and the subsequent development of a renal abscess. In late 2012 J suffered terrible abdominal pain, vomiting, dehydration, weight-loss and other awful symptoms which caused her to fear she was dying.  J was admitted to hospital as an emergency where she underwent urgent investigations and received prompt treatment and surgery. Thankfully J went on to make a good recovery.

Our view was that the abnormality in J’s kidney had been overlooked and that she was not followed up and offered treatment options which would have saved her a lot of pain and suffering. We instructed an expert urologist who supported  our views.

J’s claim, although of modest value, was hugely important to her. She craved an explanation and an apology. She had no desire to blame or punish anyone. J made an early offer to settle in the hope of avoiding litigation. She was and still is a firm believer in the NHS.

Liability and causation were denied throughout, leaving J with no alternative but to litigate her claim.  J’s case was vigorously defended and a trial looked likely when, at the eleventh hour, the Defendant Health Board made an offer to settle which J elected to accept.

J’s feedback regarding our service was entirely positive. When asked if she would recommend us J said she had already done so – and we are now helping her friend.

 


Compensation settlement for loss of sight in one eye

In May 2012 Mrs S went to see her GP with a letter written by her optician who recommended onward referral to an ophthalmological specialist.

Instead of referring her Mrs S’ GPs prescribed eye drops following various appointments over several months. Mrs S was a patient of a group practice and so was seen by a number of different doctors.

After about five months one of Mrs S’ GPs finally referred her (urgently) to a local hospital. The specialist there was so concerned by his own findings that he made an urgent onward referral to a specialist eye hospital and they saw Mrs S promptly.

Thorough assessment and further investigations revealed that Mrs S had a tumour behind her eye and she was listed for surgery to remove it.

The tumour was removed but sadly Mrs S lost the sight in her eye.

Breach of duty was admitted by the first GP Mrs S had seen: on the basis that she should have been referred to a specialist but was not.

The first GP did not however accept that there was a causative link between the delay in referring Mrs S to a specialist and the eventual loss of sight in the affected eye.

Expert evidence was obtained from a GP and a Consultant Ophthalmologist with a special interest in orbital surgery. Counsel (a barrister) was instructed and Mrs S’s claim was valued.

The GP’s solicitors advanced what appeared to be a nuisance offer, which was quite upsetting for Mrs S. Court proceedings were issued and defended. Offers and counter-offers were exchanged and eventually, Mrs S elected to settle her claim without proceeding to trial.

At the conclusion of her claim Mrs S wrote to our Mark Tawn:

“Thanks for all your help and support and to the team at Davey Law as well throughout. Truly grateful.”

We were delighted to work for and with Mrs S and to achieve an outcome with which she was happy.

If you think you have been inadequately treated by your doctor and that you have suffered injury and loss as a consequence talk to Davey Law now.

Telephone us on: 01285 654875

Or send us an email: enquiries@seriousinjury.expert

_________________________________________________________________________

 

Issuing proceedings does not necessarily mean a trial

Mrs D came to us with a clinical negligence claim which arose from retained products of conception following the birth of her second child.  This went undiagnosed in spite of numerous follow-up health appointments over many months. 

The fact that  the condition  remained unresolved with the health authority caused her many months of suffering and embarrassment. 

As the health authority would not co-operate, proceedings were issued and the claim  was vigorously defended, in spite of the robust medical evidence which we had obtained in support of the claim.  We served proceedings and the health authority continued to deny liability. 

As we approached trial our firm approach toward the claim resulted in the health authority making an acceptable offer to settle. Mrs D was delighted and we accepted the offer on her instructions.

____________________________________________________________

Settlement meetings

Mr L suffered a work related injury which was complicated by the fact that he had a pre-existing condition. 

He was unable to continue to work full time and was forced to leave his job.  He became self employed, as he could work around his disability although this caused him a significant loss of income and resulted in a great deal of anxiety for him and his family. 

Further, Mr L needed minor adaptations to his house and some specialist equipment.  As a result of his injury he was unable to carry out the routine maintenance and decoration which he had previously done himself. 

The Defendant made an extremely low offer.  We proposed a meeting with the Defendant. 

We were able to negotiate a considerably higher settlement which went much further toward putting  our client in the position he would have been but for the incident.

Mr L was thrilled with the result and can  now enjoy the financial security he deserves. 

 


£9.5 million compensation for injured motorcyclist

RHJ, a motorcyclist who crashed into a van that pulled out in front of him, has been awarded more than £9.5 million in compensation. RHJ’s motorcycle hit the van with huge force, leaving him with serious brain damage and other injuries.

RHJ now has to use a wheelchair, suffers from a speech impairment and has other needs such that he requires constant care. RHJ’s compensation has allowed him to buy a home that is specially designed to cater for his needs and employ a team of carers around the clock.

RHJ’s Litigation Friend said “in a case of this nature, the individual can easily be forgotten, but Davey Law always made sure that our son’s needs were at the forefront and even though we have reached a settlement they continue to show their caring and compassionate nature in enquiring after our son’s wellbeing.

We feel very content and grateful to have had the services of Davey Law and in particular Mark Tawn and Isobel Addison throughout the litigation and would happily recommend Davey Law…”.

Davey Law continue to support RHJ and his family in managing his compensation payment through the Court of Protection.


£2.9 million compensation for man knocked from his bicycle by speeding van

Ivan was knocked off his bicycle by a speeding van and sustained life-changing brain injuries and was forced to give up work and leave his home.

Ivan was awarded compensation of £2.9 million gross which he is now using to rebuild his life with the help and support of his financial deputies at Davey Law.


£1.5 million compensation for girl who walked in front of a car

Sarah was seriously injured when crossing the road when she misjudged the speed of an approaching car and ran out in front of it.

Despite Sarah being primarily responsible for her accident Davey Law believed that Sarah was not entirely to blame. After a long battle Sarah was awarded £1.5 million in compensation owing to the severity of her injuries.

Sarah will need to make this comparatively small award work very hard to sustain her in the long-term and Davey Law continue to assist her with managing her compensation to maximise her return and facilitate her rehabilitation.

_____________________________________________________________________________

£1.3 million compensation for bilateral leg amputation

Paul was hit by an uninsured car and unfortunately both his legs had to be amputated above the knee. A claim was pursued against the Motor Insurers Bureau and he received £1.3 million in compensation.

The award included the costs of state-of-the-art prosthetic limbs, moving to a suitably adapted home, lost earnings and retraining.  This compensation award has helped Paul to rebuild his life including purchasing a property that has been adapted to maximise his independence.

_____________________________________________________________________________

£200,000 compensation for Chronic Pain

Brian had surgery on his knee and developed an infection.  As a result of the infection being left untreated Brian developed a chronic pain condition which left him struggling with stairs and unable to pursue his hobbies.  Brian accepted an out-of-court award of £200,000.

________________________________________________________________________