Urology – Medical Negligence Claims & Compensation
Urology claims may include incontinence or kidney problems sometimes combined with sexual difficulties.
People who have suffered these types of problems because of a medical mistake can have a much reduced quality of life. Frequently there can also be psychological effects.
Urology Success Stories:
W v Barking, Havering & Redbridge NHS Trust
Out of court settlement 17 May 2006
This case concerns allegedly negligence treatment by the medical staff at King George’s Hospital.
The Claimant was employed as an architectural technician. He was diagnosed as suffering from renal stones in August 2001. The Claimant experiences abdominal pain and a feeling of tightness when urinating.
In October 2002 he was admitted for a ureteroscopy at King George’s Hospital where his consultant was unable to reach the stones. A stent was inserted with the hope of opening up the passage to allow the stones to be passed naturally. The Claimant was told that the stent would be removed after a month and that he would receive a letter asking him to come back to the hospital.
The Claimant did not pass the stones and did not receive a letter from the hospital asking him to come back in. The Claimant began to experience back pain in November 2002 and consulted his GP. He also called the hospital to arrange an appointment but was told to ring back after Christmas as the clinic was all booked up.
He was finally set an appointment for 14th February 2003. The Claimant commended on the fact that the stent had been in for longer than a month and asked why this had happened. He was told that there had been problems getting him into the hospital as there was a long waiting list.
In February 2003 the Claimant had a ureteroscopy and was told that the stent had been stilted up and encrusted. The old stent was removed and a new one inserted.
The Claimant began to experience pain when bending over, when waiting to urinate, when standing and when walking. The pain became sharper on urination. Erectile dysfunction was experienced and the client had to resort to buying tadalafil online to restart his sex life.
In April 2003 the Claimant received a letter for a clinic appointment prior to surgery in August. The surgery could not take place because there were no available beds. The Claimant was finally given an appointment for October 2003.
The stent was removed and a further one inserted. The Claimant was told that the stent took a long time to take out as it was encrusted again.
The Claimant did not pass the stones and eventually they were removed by ureteroscopy in August 2004. The stent could not be removed as it was so encrusted. The Claimant was therefore advised that he would have to come in for Extra Corporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy to remove the stent. This was carried out in September 2004 and he was told that he would have to come back 2 weeks later to have the stent removed. There were no beds available and the Claimant had to wait until April 2005 before an appointment could be made.
The stent could not be removed and the Claimant had to undergo a procedure to remove the stent which involved opening up his kidney.
The Claimant suffered from incontinence, blood in his urine and constant pain in his lower back.
The Claimant had to give up his hobbies which included squash, gardening and taking children on charity trips due to the pain that he was experiencing. He gained approximately 3 stone as he was unable to remain active throughout his ordeal.
The Claimant was made redundant during his ordeal. His urinary problems meant that he was self conscious about working for an employer and was forced to become self-employed until the stent was removed and his urinary problems resolved.
The Claimant has now made a full recovery and has resumed his work as an architectural technician for a local employer.
Instructions were received in December 2004 and the case was funded by Legal Expenses Insurance. An investigation was carried out into liability and causation. The defendant did not make an admission of liability and therefore proceedings had to be issued.
An expert in Urology was instructed and was extremely critical of the treatment that the Claimant received. He concluded that there were repeated and unacceptable delays in providing effective management compounded by questionable clinical decision making and lack of adequate resources.
Departments of Urology have an obligation to maintain a record of patients with uretic stents and ensure that stents are removed or replaced before encrustation and impaction occurs. There was a breach of duty in the Trusts’s failure to allow the stent to remain in-situ for periods of 4 months, 8 months, 10 months and 20 months.
The Defendants made an offer of £30,000 on 15th March 2006.
The Claimant made an offer of £40,000.
The Defendants then made an offer of £35,000 which was accepted by the Claimant who did not want to go to trial and wanted to put the matter behind him now that he was stone and stent free.