MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE CASE STUDY
IN THE MATTER OF:
KG (A Minor)
-v-
MACCLESFIELD HEALTH AUTHORITY
The Claimant was born on the 13th September 1984. KG suffered from a congenital dislocation of the left hip which was not diagnosed until the 15th October 1987, routine investigations having failed to identify the CDH and despite the Claimant's parents expressing concerns that she was not walking properly. When the condition was eventually diagnosed, she was admitted to hospital and was treated initially by traction on a frame. She then had an examination under anaesthesia, after which, the hip was immobilised in a plaster cast. She was then put in a splint for 12 months.
The Claimant started school slightly late due to the splint and her schooling was affected, although in her early school years she was able, through determination, to engage in all activities of school. However, as she got older, her mobility deteriorated and pain increased which affected her concentration and ability to study. As the Claimant has got older and into her teenage years, there has been a steady and progressive worsening of the pain in her left groin and it is now more or less continuous. She takes Paracetamol and Ibuprofen as required. Without analgesia, she is unable to concentrate or to sleep properly.
The Claimant's mobility is impaired and she can only walk approximately 100 yards before having to stop. She requires care and assistance, particularly if she needs to go to the toilet at night and she finds stairs difficult. The Claimant's social life is restricted through her lack of mobility and she has a good deal of time off school, becoming more isolated from her peers as a result.
Degenerative changes are apparent in the Claimant's hip and she suffers a degree of pain as a result. The medical opinion, for both the Claimant and the Defendants was that she would undoubtedly come to hip replacement and would require several revisions in her lifetime. Various "holding operations" have been suggested in order to alleviate the pain and defer the time at which she would need a total hip replacement. However, as yet, the Claimant has not undergone any such procedure.
Proceedings began on the 27th September 1993. The Defendants included the local Health Authority, responsible for the child health clinic attended by the Claimant, as well as three General Practitioners who had attended the Claimant at various times. Judgment was entered thereafter against all Defendants on 3rd January 1997, after an Order for a split trial was secured on behalf of the Claimant. Assessment of damages was deferred, because of the uncertain prognosis.
Professor Duckworth reported for the Claimant, and Mr Dorgan for the Defendant. There was a joint meeting on the 16th February 2001 where it was agreed as follows:-
i) the Claimant required a “holding operation” in order to diminish her pain;
ii) without such holding operation, KG would require a hip replacement by the age of 30, if holding surgery were successful in relieving the pain the need for hip replacement could probably be deferred until the age of 40 to 45;
iii) the orthopaedic experts accepted the opinion of Dr Menzies, Consultant Gynaecologist, that the Claimant has a greater than 50% chance of requiring a Caesarean section in the event she becomes pregnant and has children;
iv) with successful holding surgery and hip replacement, thereafter, the Claimant will be able to undertake most occupations i.e. those which do not require agility or the need to be on her feet constantly, but she would be unable to undertake most forms of sport.
Professor Duckworth also advised in relation to the possible complications of the various operations that KG would be likely to undertake during her lifetime and the Particulars of Claim were amended to include a claim for provisional damages.
The matter was fixed for a disposal hearing, to take place on the 21st and 22nd October 2002.
The Defendants had, at the time of Judgment being entered, paid into Court the sum of £25,000.00. The Defendants subsequently made a global offer to the Claimant in the sum of £240,000.00 in full and final settlement of the claim at a round table meeting on the 24th June 2002. This was rejected. The Defendant subsequently increased their offer to £270,000.00. The Claimant wished to accept this sum. It was envisaged that there would be an Infant Approval hearing. However, given that this was so close to the Claimant's 18th birthday the Judge in fact adjourned the matter and it was agreed that the Defendants would pay the monies into Court and extend the time for acceptance of same by the Claimant. Although heads of damages were not agreed with the Defendants, the Claimant's view in relation to the breakdown of the settlement figure was as follows:-
General Damages and interest £50,000.00
Past Losses:
Care/aids and equipment/ miscellaneous/interest £60,000.00
Future Losses:
Care and household costs £31,200.00
Travel £7,000.00
Aids and equipment £21,800.00
Private medical care £40,000.00
House adaptations £10,000.00
Handicap on the labour market £50,000.00 £160,000.00
TOTAL: £270,000.00
There were no repayable benefits.
Claimant's Solicitor
Olivia Scates
JMW Solicitors, Manchester
Counsel
Mary Ruck
Defendant's Solicitors
Hempsons
Radcliffes Le Brasseur
Hill Dickinson
Defendants' Counsel
Sarah Pritchard
JMW Solicitors have one of the most experienced and respected medical and clinical negligence compensation claims teams in the UK. We are able to deal with cases using public funding (formerly Legal Aid) or No Win No Fee in appropriate cases. If after talking to us you decide not to take matters further you are under no obligation to do so and you will not be charged for our initial advice session.
For an assessment of your potential claim, please click here to complete our online enquiry form and one of our specialists will contact you shortly or please contact us on 0845 402 0001.
