First case

This was a claim which arose following treatment received following a road traffic accident. Two Healthcare Trusts were involved - the first Healthcare Trust who treated our client immediately after the accident, the second Healthcare Trust to whom our client's treatment and management was transferred.

During the road traffic accident, the client suffered a commuted fracture of the left distal humerus. Surgery was performed the same day, which involved an open reduction and internal fixation of the fracture of the humerus. Our expert considered that the wrong plates were used; they were too thin and did not achieve fracture stability. This was the claim against the First Defendant. The claim against the Second Defendant was that the Claimant was allowed to mobilise his elbow at too early a stage, notwithstanding that the fixation that had been achieved was inadequate. We believe that the Second Defendant should have been told by the First Defendant that the fixation was fragile but that, had the Second Defendant considered the records, they would have appreciated that the Claimant should not have mobilised as early as he did.

Further surgery had to be undertaken by the Second Defendant. During that surgery, they failed to protect the radial nerve.

To protect the client's position, we issued proceedings within the three year period from the road traffic accident even though we were still in the process of gathering medical evidence to support the claim. A Claimant only has three years from their date of injury or date of knowledge of injury in which to issue proceedings. If we had failed to issue proceedings, our client would have been left without a remedy.

Once we had gathered the evidence we required, a detailed Letter of Claim was sent to the Defendants, following which a meeting took place between us and the Defendants and this matter settled for £20,000.

Second case

This was a claim where our client pursued an action against a Healthcare Trust following a failure to diagnose a fracture to the left leg. Proceedings were issued and the Defendant accepted that they had breached their duty of care towards our client which had put the client in a worse position than he would otherwise have been in. We were then able to enter Judgment in favour of our client, with the consent of the Defendant. We were unable to settle this claim immediately due to an uncertain prognosis. This also delayed the exchange of expert evidence. Despite the uncertain prognosis, we issued proceedings earlier rather than later to enable us to secure Judgment which, in turn, enabled us to apply for an interim payment to alleviate financial pressure on our client until the medical evidence was concluded. We organised a hip operation for our client, paid for by the Defendant, and were able to persuade the Defendant that our client's inability to work until his natural retirement age was due to the consequences of their clinical negligence. At this time, our client was not far from retirement.

The claim settled for £41,000.