Featured News | Fairweather Solicitors LLP

Case Involving Years of Pressure Sore Suffering for Disabled Man Settles

16th January 2025 – Fairweathers had the great privilege of being instructed by the late Mr Darren and his family.

Darren’s past medical history included spina bifida, hydrocephalus, type 2 diabetes and a urostomy (fitted at the age of 16). He also suffered from essential hypertension and had a cataract operated on in 2019.

Darren had no sensation in his lower body (from his belly button down), he could not manoeuvre himself independently and relied on others to help him sit up or turn.

Darren self-managed his blood glucose level monitoring and insulin administration 3 times a day.

In mid – 2005, he was admitted to hospital with a Kidney stone. Whilst in hospital he developed a sacral pressure sore. He was given the wrong type of mattress during his hospital stay despite Darren and his mum advising the hospital that a different mattress was required.

Darren had district nurses visit to treat the sore which was recorded as a category 4 sacrum ulcer. He was advised that it was a chronic wound that was unlikely to heal and there was no improvement in his condition which slowly worsened.

In 2016, Darren had to have an above knee amputation of his left leg due to a pressure sore on his toe becoming necrotic.

Darren continued to suffer from ever worsening care with no escalation to senior clinicians about his condition.

Eventually, by 2019, safeguarding issues regarding his care resulted in a flurry of activity and an independent investigation into his care resulted in several recommendations and admissions of fault. For Darren this was too little too late.

In April 2021 with the aid of his family Darren instructed Fairweathers to pursue an investigation into clinical negligence.

Specialist expert reports were commissioned which highlighted significant breaches over a 15-year period.

A letter of claim was sent to the University Hospitals Sussex NHS Foundation Trust and Sussex Community NHS Foundation Trust.

They commenced a lengthy investigation and a formal response was forthcoming in August 2024 within which it was admitted that there were failures in nursing care from December 2005 onwards which resulted in the subsequent deterioration of Darren’s already vulnerable skin and delays in ensuring healing of the areas concerned.Darren lived long enough, by just a few weeks, to see that admission but regrettably lost his battle with his complex health problems and died at the end of August 2024.

His family continued the action in his name and settled the claim at £50,000.00.

Darren’s suffering had mercifully been brought to end by his death and his family wished only to see a rapid resolution to the action.

Speaking of the claim. Mr Graham Balmforth, commented:- “Those individuals who are most at risk deserve the highest levels of protection and care. Despite the multiple problems in his life and health Darren remained cheerful and resilient to the end. He was an inspiration to all who knew him or had any contact with him. From all at Fairweathers it was a genuine privilege to have had him as a client”.

If you or your family need the assistance of our experienced specialist team of Clinical Negligence Solicitors then please submit your case details for our consideration.

£25,000 for Dermatologist Removing Wrong Facial Mole

15th January 2025 – Our client Ms C had a longstanding problem with superficial skin moles and was placed on a regular regime of inspection and monitoring of these by her GP.

In May 2023 a potentially suspicious mole on her nose was referred to an in house dermatologist at the Estuary View Medical Clinic in Whitstable. They indicated that the mole was capable of turning into a malignant growth and should be removed.

An appointment for a punch biopsy procedure to permanently remove the mole.

At that appointment, the nose area was anaesthetised with the mole marked for removal and biopsied. The procedure was undertaken very quickly with the mole then sent to the hospital for histological testing.

Back at home after the procedure our client was able to examine her nose and it was obvious to her that there had been an error. Incredibly, the dermatologist had managed to biopsy the incorrect mole. Instead of removing he intended mole which was in a relatively inconspicuous area the biopsy had been performed near the tip of the nose on a different mole that was not problematic.
Ms. C complained to the practice.

At first the response from the Practice and the dermatologist was that the mole biopsied may not have been the correct one but that this mole had the capability of turning malignant too, so it may as well have been removed as it would save doing it later. However, once the histology had returned from the hospital, it was clear that the mole was completely harmless and was highly unlikely to ever be a problem.

Ms C instructed Fairweathers to bring an action in clinical negligence.

We instructed an expert dermatologist who was highly critical of the dermatologist highlighting several concerns and breaches of duty.

A Letter of Claim was sent which yielded an initial offer of £4,000.00.

That offer was quickly rejected and Fairweathers Solicitors instructed a Plastic Surgeon to report on the injury. That report indicated the extent of the injury and the fact it was likely to have caused permanent scarring.

A series of offers and counter offers subsequently took place between the parties and the matter concluded prior to court action for £25,000.00 in compensation.

Speaking about the claim Mr Balmforth, Consultant Solicitor for Fairweather Solicitors LLP commented “Whilst the injury here seems small, the fact that it was on the face of Ms. C and that it was visible to her every day has played a big part in assessing the compensation”.

Moving forward, the compensation awarded will allow Ms.C to disguise the extent of the injury using cosmetics. It is a notable point that she has subsequently, taken further expert advice on the mole that should have been biopsied and it is in fact completely harmless. There was therefore, no good reason to perform a biopsy the area at all. It remains, however, under regular review.

Ms. C now hopes that the action brought will change the way that these biopsies are performed to make it safer for other patients in the future.

If you or your family need the assistance of our experienced specialist team of Clinical Negligence Solicitors then please submit your case details for our consideration.

£18,000 Recovered for Dental Drill bit Dropped down Throat and Lodged in Lung

25th November 2024 – Our client, a young woman, attended Hamstreet Dental Clinic, near Ashford, Kent, on 18.03.2022, for an appointment with a locum dentist Dr Neda Hussaini.

During a routine dental procedure, something fell to the back of our client’s throat.

Both the dentist and the dental nurse immediately forced her into an upright position. She started to choke and she was patted on the back and encouraged to cough.

Dr Hussaini then claimed that the offending item was a fraction of a tooth filling and that it had been swallowed safely and would pass through the digestive system without any problem.

However, later that day, our client received a phone call from the Clinic receptionist who disclosed that she had in fact swallowed a fitting bit for the dental drill.

Our client was taken to the William Harvey Hospital A&E department at around 4.15pm.

There, an x-ray demonstrated that the drill bit had been aspirated into her lung. The doctors were concerned about the position of the bit and said that they required an expert opinion.

At 8pm it was confirmed the drill head was in the lower right lung.

Our client was kept in an observation room and advised to keep still due to the risk of rupturing her lung. She was told that the hospital were taking advice from St Bart’s Hospital London and preparing for her to be transferred there for a complex operation.

She was taken for a final pre transfer CT scan at around 9.40pm to identify a path for the surgeon to reach the drill in the lung.

At around 11.30pm she was shown a text from St Bart’s Hospital regarding potential complications of the surgery including a risk of pneumothorax due to the drill bit possibly puncturing the lung. She was told to remain nil by mouth.

She started to develop a heavy wheeze and her condition worsened at around 1am. At 1.45am, whilst waiting in A&E for her transfer to St Bart’s Hospital, she started to turn pale, had breathing difficulties and experienced a foul taste in her mouth. She fell into a violent coughing fit during which the drill piece was brought up and landed in her handShe was kept in hospital for further observations and was advised to remain still as she was at risk of internal bleeding.

At 7.45am she was discharged home. She was advised to refrain from movement, not to exercise and to return to hospital immediately if she had any bleeding.

Although our client recovered physically, it was a horrifying ordeal and she suffered nightmares, flashbacks and intrusive thoughts about the incident.She instructed Fairweather Solicitors LLP to pursue the dentist for negligence.

We commenced investigations and once expert evidence was available began a case against the Defendant dentist.

Psychiatric evidence commissioned indicated that our client had been caused by PTSD by what she had experienced.

Incredibly, the Defendant did not accept any responsibility for the accident but £3,000.00 was offered to conclude the action.

This was rejected and a counter offer of £20,000.00 made.

This was rejected by the Defendant but a final position was reached between the parties to settle the case at £18,000.00.

Fairweathers’ Solicitor Graham Balmforth who took over the case and concluded it commented:- “This is a case that demonstrates well the dangers of choking and aspiration injuries in dental work. Many of these claims have been brought under control in the last 5 years by the increasing use of “rubber damns” in the oral cavity which block particles from being swallowed or breathed in. It is regrettable that their use is not yet mandatory. In this case, it may well have prevented a genuinely distressing incident that resulted in a terrifying hospital admission and a consequential psychological injury”

Whilst the injury here was primarily psychological there is no doubting that the outcome could have been very different.

With the client’s permission, Graham has contacted the Faculty of General Dental Practice UK (FGDP) asking them to consider the mandatory use of rubber damns together with mandatory record keeping regarding hand piece purchase, maintenance and disposal for optimal safe practices.

If you or your family need the assistance of our experienced specialist team of Clinical Negligence Solicitors then please submit your case details for our consideration.