<< Back to Successful Cases << Previous | Next >>
Delay in Diagnosing Cervical Cancer
Mrs H attended the Defendant Hospital for a routine cervical smear test.
On or around 1994 her smear was diagnosed as showing borderline changes and she was therefore called for annual review. She regularly attended all the review appointments which she received either on an annual basis or following the birth of her children, between 1994 and 2000.
On each occasion, she was advised that her smear tests were clear.
Following the birth of her fourth son in late 2000, a further smear was diagnosed as showing changes indicative of cancerous cells. Mrs H was subsequently diagnosed in early 2001 as having cervical cancer.
Mrs H underwent radical surgery by way of a hysterectomy and removal of her cervix. Sadly, subsequent to this she developed a recurrence and had to have her bladder removed and replaced with a bag. A second recurrence developed within a muscle in her lower back for which she received chemotherapy.
Mrs H was a working mother with four children all under the age of 11.
The Defendant Hospital, of their own volition, instigated an investigation when the diagnosis was made and were open with the family throughout the process, which included providing them with copies of the independent expert reports that they had obtained. These reports were damning of the Hospital and confirmed that the cancer had been erroneously missed from late 1994 onwards and that it should have been diagnosed and treated at that stage. If it had been diagnosed and treated properly there would have been a very small risk of any recurrence and in all likelihood Mrs H would have made a full recovery. As it was, by the time it was diagnosed, there was no option but to perform the radical surgery which was undertaken and the prognosis was guarded.
As a result, when litigation was commenced the Defendant Hospital quickly admitted liability and causation of injury and the investigation of Mrs H’s claim centred upon the valuation of her claim. This was a complex process because there were a number of difficult and conflicting legal principles involved. If the case had been settled within Mrs H’s lifetime there would have been no dependency claim that could have been made for her husband or children, whereas a claim pursued subsequent to her death would have had a considerably higher value. Although Mrs H’s prognosis was pessimistic, she continued to fight the cancer and tried to live as normal a life as possible. The investigation into the value of her claim progressed slowly because Mrs H’s medical condition was continually changing and it was entirely unclear how matters would develop in the short term.
Eventually, a settlement was negotiated with the Defendant Hospital who agreed to pay Mrs H a sum of damages which was considerably higher than the value of her claim if it was settled during her lifetime but at the same time making a discount upon the value of the claim, if it were settled, after she had died. The decision was taken by Mrs H, in consultation with her family, to settle the claim on this basis so that she could enjoy some of the money with her children whilst she was still alive but at the same time know that there would be money available for them after she had died.
Mrs H accepted a sum of £250,000 in damages plus payment of her legal costs in settlement of her claim.
Samantha Buckthought who conducted this claim on Mrs H’s behalf says: “This was a very emotive case and had to be handled delicately with considerable tact. We were faced with difficult decisions regarding Mrs H’s life expectancy, which had to be considered sensitively against the background of her ongoing treatment. The Defendant Hospital were co-operative and amicable throughout and this was a good example of where litigation, although sometimes dealing with difficult subjects, can be dealt with in a way that is amenable to all parties and minimises distress. Although this is a tragic case and involves circumstances which could have been avoided, it is to be hoped that the financial settlement will allow Mrs H to live as full a life with her children as possible.”