<< Back to Successful Cases << Previous | Next >>
Spinal Injury During Routine Knee Replacement Operation
Mrs W, who was an elderly lady, underwent a routine knee replacement operation at the Defendant Hospital, for arthritis of the knee. She was aged 80 at the date of the operation.
The operation was performed using a general anaesthetic and an epidural anaesthetic which was inserted into Mrs W’s back shortly before the operation commenced. When Mrs W gained consciousness in the recovery room following the operation, she was unable to feel her legs or most of her body from the waist down. The knee replacement operation had been a complete success. However, the Defendant Hospital undertook investigations which revealed that Mrs W had sustained an injury to her spinal cord which was the cause of the neurological problem.
This was a devastating injury to Mrs W who, despite her age, lived alone, was entirely independent and extremely active.
The injury meant that Mrs W, who had become wheelchair dependant, could not return to live in her own home as she was no longer able to look after herself. In addition, her home was not wheelchair accessible. Mrs W went to live with her daughter and her daughter’s large family. She relied entirely upon the care that they were able to provide and subsequently upon outside carers to assist her in mobilising, transferring from her wheelchair to her bed and in connection with her personal hygiene and dressing. She had to have a catheter inserted and controlled her bowels with laxatives.
Mrs W was no longer able to do anything for herself unaided and she could not engage in her social activities or go out of the house unless she was accompanied.
Wolferstans realised that this would be a difficult claim to pursue successfully but that Mrs W was entirely justified in seeking to investigate a claim as it had had such a dramatic effect upon her life. After an initial investigation which involved obtaining copies of her medical records and obtaining independent medical expert evidence, it became apparent that Mrs W’s injuries were caused by the negligence of the Hospital.
The claim was put forward and the Defendant Hospital accepted at an early stage that the epidural had caused the damage, but denied that they had been negligent in respect of the manner in which the epidural had been inserted. They suggested that the injury sustained was a known risk of the procedure which could have resulted in any patient without negligence on the part of the Anaesthetist.
As the Defendant Hospital declined to admit liability, Court proceedings were commenced and litigation was pursued for a considerable period of time. However, the Defendant Hospital eventually accepted that there was overwhelming evidence that the epidural needle had been inserted too high in the spinal column and that this was an unacceptable mistake.
Even after liability had been fully conceded, there was a very long and bitterly contested argument over the amount of compensation which Mrs W should receive. The Defendant Hospital tried to assert that, due to her age, any care that Mrs W would need in the future would have been necessary anyway even if she had not suffered the injury. In particular, they attempted to assert that she would inevitably have lived with her daughter in the future, in any event. We were not prepared to concede any of these points and eventually, to avoid going to trial, the Defendant Hospital made an offer which we received instructions to accept. This was the last of a series of offers which had been made, all of which had previously been rejected.
Mrs W eventually agreed to accept a sum of £600,000 in damages, plus payment of her legal costs in settlement of her claim.
Mrs W was aged 84 at the date of settlement. She was able to utilise her damages to purchase a suitable alternative property to live in so that she could live independently from her family, but with live-in carers to assist her during the day and at night. In this way she was able to regain as much independence as is possible.
Samantha Buckthought who conducted this claim on Mrs W’s behalf says: “It was to Mrs W’s credit that she was prepared to fight her claim in the face of significant opposition from the Defendant Hospital. However, she had sustained a devastating and avoidable injury and whole-heartedly deserved the compensation she received. It is all too easy to assume that an elderly patient is not entitled to a large award for compensation, but every case has to be judged and valued on its own facts and it is important that every client receives the appropriate amount of damages to meet their future needs.”