Pain and Fame (2) – Agony Ant

Posts Tagged ‘medical negligence’

Pain and Fame (2) – Agony Ant

Posted on: June 20th, 2017 by Mark Tawn No Comments

Pain and Fame (2) – Agony Ant

Sadly, it has recently been claimed that Ant McPartlin, one half of the nation’s favourite double-act Ant & Dec, has checked into rehab.

We have blogged about how pain can affect anyone at any time, including the rich and famous.

Ant McPartlin

Newspaper reports suggest that Ant has been suffering with chronic pain for years – because of  problems with his right knee. Also, it is said that Ant and his wife have been upset by an inability to have children. We add our voice to the outpouring of support for Mr McPartlin, his wife and those around him.

Ant McPartlin

Anthony David ‘Ant’ McPartlin, OBE  was born in 1975.  Best known as one half of the acting and TV presenting duo Ant & Dec.

Ant’s first career break was in the children’s drama series Byker Grove which led to a pop music careeer for himself and Declan Donnolley as PJ & Duncan. Ant and Dec went on to have a very successful career as television presenters, presenting I’m a Celebrity…Get Me Out of Here! and, Ant & Dec’s Saturday Night Takeaway since 2002, Britain’s Got Talent since 2007 and Text Santa since 2011.

It can happen to anyone

We reported in one of our Success Stories how one of our clients suffered botched knee surgery. He went on to develop CRPS, a devastating condition which caused agonising pain and considerable disability. It may be that Ant’s knee problem was age-related and that his surgery was skilfully performed but if somebody else has been at fault, as in our client’s case, compensation can be claimed.

Money may not be an issue for actors and TV stars who can afford to pay for private treatment. For ordinary folk interim payments and a final compensation award can lead to rehabilitation, care and assistance, a move to more suitable accommodation and peace of mind.

Mark Tawn, who has a special interest in chronic pain cases comments:

It is sad to hear about Ant McPartlin. I remember when he was in Byker Grove and over the years my children have grown up watching him on TV. My favourite moment was seeing Ant & Dec in Love Actually – hilarious! Chronic pain is terrible. Some of my clients have fallen into despair, never knowing if or when their troubles will come to an end; others have struggled with side-effects from medication they have been prescribed and others have craved rehabilitation but been unable to access it. Hopefully Ant will make a full recovery and will become a vocal supporter for others who suffer daily.

If you are suffering with chronic pain as a result of an accident that wasn’t your fault contact us and see how we can help.

 

Compensation for sight lost in one eye

Posted on: July 18th, 2016 by Mark Tawn No Comments

Compensation settlement for sight lost in one eye

Devastation after sight lost following surgery.  Sight lost

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

No win, no fee. No call centres. Just serious injury experts.

The mystery of chronic pain

Posted on: May 19th, 2016 by Isobel Addison No Comments

The mystery of chronic pain

Why do some people develop chronic pain following an injury while others do not?

The question has remained a mystery to both doctors and scientists.

Chronic pain affects millions of people.  People who suffer from severe, chronic pain know only too well how it can utterly disrupt and damage day-to-day life. Pain can make it a challenge to get through each day let alone to enjoy even the simplest daily activities.

Chronic pain has historically been misunderstood. The medical profession used to believe that pain could only be a manifestation of an underlying injury or disease. As such, doctors focused on treating the underlying cause of the pain, with the belief that once the injury or disease was cured the chronic pain would then disappear.

If no underlying cause could be found for the pain, then the patient was often told that, “the pain must be in your head”. Unfortunately, some doctors still practice in this manner, having no appreciation for the unique difficulties experienced by sufferers of chronic pain.

A new study led by researchers at the Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago (RIC) and Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine has revealed that the risk of a patient developing  chronic pain is determined by the brains anatomical properties, and not the initial injury.

“While simple, the logic of addressing problems at the site of an injury to remove pain has resulted in only limited success,” said senior study author Marwan Baliki, PhD, research scientist at RIC and an assistant professor of physical medicine and rehabilitation at Feinberg. “The central processes of chronic pain have largely been ignored, so our research team set out to better understand the brain’s role.”

The researchers found that patients who developed chronic pain had a smaller hippocampus and amygdala compared with those who recovered. The hippocampus is the primary brain region involved in memory formation and retention, while the amygdala is involved in the processing of emotions and fear. In addition to changes in size, these regions also showed differences in connections to the rest of the brain, particularly to the frontal cortex, an area involved in judgment.

The study’s results challenge long-standing views of the science of pain, establishing that the gross anatomical properties of the brain determine the most risk for developing chronic pain.

The results pave the way for the development of a different approach for the prevention and treatment of chronic pain.

The full study, “Corticolimbic anatomical characteristics predetermine risk for chronic pain,” will be published in the June edition of Brain. In addition to Apkarian, Baliki and Vachon-Presseau, study authors include Pascal Tétreault, Bogdan Petre, Lejian Huang, Sara E. Berger, Souraya Torbey, Alexis T. Baria, Ali R.Mansour, Javeria A. Hashmi, James W. Griffith, Erika Comasco, and Thomas J. Schnitzer.

More: http://www.pharmiweb.com/PressReleases/pressrel.asp?ROW_ID=167888#.Vz2KU9L2ZMg#ixzz4961Bq7CF

Compensation Claims

Posted on: April 22nd, 2016 by Isobel Addison No Comments

Brining your compensation claim is what we do. Welcome to our new video about our serious injury team.

      

Our serious injury expert Peter Davies explains what Davey Law can do for you. 

Compensation claim

With over 100 years of experience of bringing compensation claims across Gloucestershire and across England and Wales, our aim is to obtain compensation and restore your quality of life.

So if you, or someone you know, has suffered a serious injury, why not call us on 01285 654875 to discuss making a claim. You won’t speak to a call centre but to one of our experienced serious injury experts.

No Win, No Fee. No call centres, No nonsense. Just serious injury experts.

 

 

Axium™ Neurostimulator

Posted on: April 12th, 2016 by Isobel Addison No Comments

St. Jude Medical Axium™ Neurostimulator Stimulator launched

On 11th April 2016 St. Jude Medical, Inc., a global medical device company, announced the U.S. launch and first post-approval implants of the St. Jude Medical Axium™ Neurostimulator System.

The treatment for patients with chronic pain involves dorsal root ganglion (DRG) stimulation. it is hoped that the treatment will help patients who have not been receptive to traditional spinal cord stimulation (SCS).

The first commercial implants of the St. Jude Medical Axium™ Neurostimulator System device have taken place at the Centre for Pain Relief in Charleston, and at the Sutter Santa Rosa Surgery and Endoscopy Centre in Santa Rosa, California.

 

Telephone our legal experts NOW

(Photo: Business Wire)

Half of the states in the USA will treat patients using the  DRG implants in the coming weeks.

St. Jude Medical has partnered with 59 implanting chronic pain specialist centres across the country. They hope to conduct more than 100 procedures in the first month.

They aim to train more than 300 physicians to effectively deliver DRG therapy to patients over the next year.

The treatment is designed for patients in immediate need of targeted stimulation to alleviate chronic pain resulting from moderate to severe chronic intractable pain of the lower limbs in adult patients with Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS) types I and II.

Stimulation of the DRG, a spinal structure densely populated with sensory nerves that transmit information to the brain via the spinal cord, allows physicians to treat the specific areas of the body where pain occurs. This new approach is designed exclusively to treat moderate to severe chronic intractable pain of the lower limbs in adult patients with CRPS.

Dr Pope, who has already performed the procedure says that, “Stimulation of the dorsal root ganglion is the first therapy option designed specifically for patients suffering from complex regional pain syndromes. This serious and traditionally challenging to treat chronic pain condition can occur from complications to recovery from surgeries such as knee arthroscopy, foot surgery or hernia surgery. Having a treatment option rooted in clinical evidence fundamentally changes our approach to treating patients.”

The Institute of Medicine reports that chronic pain affects more than 100 million Americans. This is more than heart disease, cancer and diabetes combined. Neuropathic pain represents one of the most prevalent yet under-treated forms of chronic pain in the United States.

Initial results evaluating patients suffering from neuropathic chronic intractable pain associated with CRPS I and II or peripheral causalgia (PC), showed DRG stimulation provided patients with superior pain relief over traditional tonic SCS.

Information for patients to learn more about chronic pain can be found at www.sjm.com/pain.

View source version on businesswire.com: http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20160411005397/en/

If you are suffering from chronic pain syndrome as a result of an accident or someone else’s negligence call our experts on 01285 654875.

 

Medical Negligence

Posted on: April 4th, 2016 by Isobel Addison No Comments

The long road to finding an alternative to litigation

The Scottish Government has appointed a review group to end what they term as the ‘blame culture’ inherent in medical negligence claims and create a ‘person-centred’ healthcare system.

The government says that litigation is expensive and time-consuming. It causes patients worry and stress. They claim that such claims distract doctors and nurses from doing their jobs.

They propose that a patient will only be compensated if they suffered harm lasting at least six months, causally connected to the avoidable harm.

In 2009 the Scottish Government established the No Fault Compensation Review Group. The group reported in 2011 and recommended a no-fault scheme for medical injury.

This was followed by a public consultation; but no legislation.

Now the government has published a consultation for a no-blame as opposed to a no-fault redress scheme.

If a patient suffers harm from clinical treatment in Scotland, they may raise a medical negligence action in the Scottish courts. They are required to prove that no ordinarily competent professional, acting reasonably, would have acted as their doctor did. They must also establish that those actions caused them some harm. So how does the proposed scheme differ?

Compensation would be founded on the concept of ‘avoidability’: could the harm have been avoided by the use of reasonable care? Expert evidence may still be needed to establish what constitutes avoidable harm or reasonable care.

The suggestion is that any compensation awarded will be based on the same guidelines and past decisions as at present. The assessment will mirror existing court actions, albeit with a cap of £100,000. Claimants may be worse off. Under the current Scottish system courts must disregard NHS care when assessing compensation. The consultation suggests replacing this with a guaranteed package of treatment and care from the NHS and local authorities.
Crucially, the right to litigate remains. Those who feel under-compensated can pursue a court action to ‘top up’ their damages although patients will be prevented from using their no-blame award to fund a litigated claim. How this will work in practice is unclear.

Litigation will not be avoided. It is likely that satellite litigation will arise on the application of the scheme in particular on the meaning of avoidability, on causation and on quantum. Significant expert evidence may still be needed and although the cost of litigation should be reduced it is unlikely to be by much.

The patient succeeds only if they prove they suffered harm which could have been avoided by the use of reasonable care so the scheme does not truly avoid blame. There is also the potential that acknowledging avoidable harm will encourage patients to seek out other forms of complaint.

All those involved in medical negligence claims welcome steps to reduce protracted litigation and unnecessary expense. However, it is far from clear that this proposal would accomplish that.

Responses to the consultation are due by 24 June 2016.