Following our previous article relating to this claim, dated 27.03.13, in which we confirmed that liability had been admitted by the Medway NHS Foundation Trust, we are now pleased to report that a good settlement has been achieved for our client who lives in Gillingham, Kent.Continue reading this article
I thought my Solicitor and his staff were 1st class from start to finish. I cannot thank them enough for their hard work and support during a very stressful time. (Mr B, Canterbury)
I had confidence in the advice given- professional – explained in simple, easy to understand terms – very important in this new age of jargon! In my opinion the service given was excellent. (Mr T, Canterbury)
You were always helpful in every way.
Very professional and efficient service. I would definitely recommend you.
You’ve been so kind and thoughtful. We really do appreciate everything you did for us. Well done.
From beginning to end, the service we have received has been brilliant. Darren has always been very honest and has kept us well informed at every stage.
Friendly, helpful, informative and always ready to listen. Advice given was fantastic, I was really happy with the outcome I am totally satisfied. (Miss C, Ashford)
We have recently settled a case for the widow of a man whose death was caused by negligence on the part of the Kent and Canterbury Hospital Canterbury.
He was urgently referred by his GP due to a suspicion of possible penile cancer in November 2004. The rapid access referral scheme was used.
He was seen by the hospital later that month and underwent circumcision in December 2004.
It was then that an appalling error occurred.
Specifically, despite the histopathology from the operation showing a moderately differentiated squamous carcinoma, these findings was not passed on to the patient, nor to his GP.
In consequence, vital months were lost in treating the cancer, prior to May 2005, when the Trust finally communicated to him that the diagnosis had been made previously.
He then underwent extensive surgery and chemo/radiotherapy.
He showed incredible bravery and dignity at all stages.
Sadly, however, because of the delay, he was unable to be saved and died in March 2006.
The case was fully investigated and a detailed letter of claim sent in December last year.
It settled pursuant to part 36 negotiations in June this year.
The Trust’s Chief Executive, Stuart Bain recently sent the widow a formal letter of apology, on behalf of the Trust, indicating that the doctor who made the mistake has been placed under supervision and that procedures have been reviewed generally.
Nick Fairweather, who had conduct of the case throughout, commented:-
“This was truly a tragic case. My client and her husband had not long retired, and moved to the local area, when he contracted the cancer. The whole point of early surveillance and rapid access arrangements is to allow early treatment and save lives. The mistake that happened on this occasion was so fundamental as to be almost unbelievable. The hospital had a positive cancer test at a time when the patient could have been saved and failed to process it.
No amount of apology by the Trust now can ever bring my client’s husband back and she cannot forgive the Trust for what they have done, particularly the pain and suffering that they put her husband through, which he endured with such incredible courage.
The case was never about money and she hopes, more than anything, that the Trust has learned its lesson and put its house in order so that another family does not have to suffer in the same way in the future.”
In this month’s Focus (the LSC’s monthly guidance publication for practitioners) two of Una Turner’s appeals to the Public Interest Advisory Panel are reported.
The Panel sits to consider appeals against refusals to provide public funding.
They have the authority to review the refusals and recommend funding if the case is seen to involve important issues of general public interest.
In the first of the two cases (PIAP/05/316) Una looked to challenge, by Judicial Review, the position whereby a patient detained pursuant to sections 37-41 of the Mental Health Act was recalled by the Home Office then denied a right to appeal, it being argued that this was incompatible with Human Rights legislation.
The application was granted by the Panel as the case was recognised to be of significant wider public interest.
In the second case (PIAP/05/318), Una sought to challenge the decision of a District Judge that a case in which damages are claimed for a patient, for unlawful detention, due to repeated delays in setting, and cancellations of, Tribunal hearings, was allocated to the small claims track (thereby making costs irrecoverable and effectively defeating the viability of the claim).
Whilst not allowing the appeal, the Panel did acknowledge that allocation of cases like this to the small claims track did raise article 6 implications, in light of the Applicant’s capacity, which needed to be taken into account in the final funding decision. The LSC subsequently granted the application.