<< Back to Successful Cases << Previous | Next >>
Delay In Diagnosing a Spinal Abscess Resulting In Paraplegia
Mrs G, a care worker, started to suffer from chest and back pain and generally felt unwell.
Mrs G visited her GP on a large number of occasions but on each of these occasions, the GP was dismissive of her symptoms and simply prescribed pain killers. Mrs G’s condition persisted and in the early hours of one morning she awoke to find she could not feel her feet at all and that numbness extended up her legs to her chest. She telephoned the same GP and explained her symptoms, but was advised that she should simply continue to take the pain killers.
As her condition continued to worsen, she called the GP again a few hours later and on this occasion he agreed to visit her. In view of the seriousness of her condition, one would have expected him to have visited urgently which he failed to do, but once he did attend, he immediately sent her to Hospital with a suspected diagnosis of an abscess on her spinal cord.
The Hospital instigated tests, but did not take any substantive action until the following day when they operated to remove the abscess.
Mrs G was left with a significant neurological disability. She was paralysed from the waist down, wheelchair dependent and have to use a catheter. She had to move out of her home into a Council owned property and had to have a live-in carer who looked after her. The carer had to assist her in transferring to and from her wheelchair, assist with her personal hygiene as well as with dressing, cooking and cleaning. Mrs G was not able to do anything for herself and had to give up work. She put on a considerable amount of weight due to her immobility and had to give up many of her hobbies.
Wolferstans realised that this would be a difficult case to prove, particularly as there were likely to be two Defendants, Mrs G’s GP and the Hospital. However, we believed that there were prospects of success and in view of the devastating effect which the injury had had upon Mrs G, we believed that she had every justification in seeking to investigate a claim.
Our investigations revealed that the GP could be criticised for his actions in the early hours of the morning on the day that Mrs G reported a sudden deterioration in her symptoms. They also revealed that the Hospital could be criticised for failing to operate immediately upon diagnosing the spinal abscess rather than waiting until the following day. However, it was apparent that even if both of the Defendants had acted appropriately, Mrs G would still have had some degree of neurological disability but this would have been far less serious than she actually sustained.
Both Defendants denied all aspect of the claim. As a result Court proceedings were commenced on Mrs G’s behalf against both of the Defendants and the case was pursued for a considerable period of time during which it was robustly defended by both of the Defendants. However, a round table meeting with all the parties was eventually arranged at which it was possible to negotiate a settlement which was acceptable to Mrs G. No formal admissions of liability were made but it was accepted by all parties that there was a significant risk of failure if the matter had proceeded to a full trial, as the Judge’s decision would have depended to a large extent upon which of the evidence to be provided by Mrs G and the Defendant doctors, he would have preferred.
Mrs G agreed to accept £500,000 damages plus payment of her legal costs in settlement of her claim. Mrs G was delighted with her award of compensation, as it meant that she was able to have a much greater degree of independence.
Samantha Buckthought who conducted this claim on Mrs G’s behalf says: “This was a very complex case as there were two Defendants both of whom completely denied any responsibility for Mrs G’s injury. It was also extremely difficult to value as it was necessary to try and establish the nature of the disability which she would have suffered in any event had she been diagnosed and treated earlier and then calculate the additional extent of the care resulting from the worsening of her condition. The settlement reached was very realistic and took into account the difficulties of the claim and the fact that it represented a life-changing sum of money which would significantly improve Mrs G’s quality of life”.