Menu & Search

*Brian* had suffered from osteoarthritis for a number of years, as a result of which had developed a lump on his big toe which was causing him pain and difficulty walking.

In 2003 it was decided that it would be necessary for him to undergo surgery to shave the lump from the toe and free the joint, therefore improving Brian’s mobility and alleviating his pain. This procedure was carried out at Brian’s local hospital in the midlands.

However, in 2006 the lump returned for a second time and Brian was advised that he would require surgery to remove the lump once more and to fuse the toe joint with a screw to prevent any movement of the toe.

A few months later Brian noticed that he could still move his toe and he was still suffering pain as before the surgery, so returned to see his surgeon. He was informed that a plate would need to be inserted into the joint to prevent its movement.

In May 2007 Brian was admitted for the surgery to insert the place. It was planned that the screw inserted in 2006 would be removed and the plate would be inserted in its place. Unfortunately the surgeon was unable to operate due to lack of theatre time, and Brian was discharged home without surgery on instructions to return for an outpatient appointment.

The next appointment took place in July 2007 and Brian was informed, much to his surprise, that he would not need the surgery. Brian was continuing to suffer extreme pain and was very distressed by this.

Brian then decided to seek a second opinion at a different hospital and in December 2007 the screw inserted in 2006 was removed in stage one of the surgery. In June 2008 Brian returned to have the surgery completed which involved a three hour operation to insert a plate and screws. He remained in hospital for three days following this.

Following his surgery Brian was informed that the surgeons had found no evidence of fusion in 2006 and that he should not have been discharged by his original surgeon in 2007.

In July 2009 Brian contacted Ian Kirwan, a specialist medical negligence solicitor at Pryers Solicitors. After initial investigations a letter outlining the allegations was put to the Defendant, who responded denying liability in full. Advice was then sought from a Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon and a further letter was sent to the Defendant outlining the holes in their argument along with an offer to settle the case.

Finally, the Defendant admitted that they had breached their duty of care to Brian and the case was settled for £8,000 plus Brian’s legal costs. Brian was happy to accept this offer and had nothing to pay in his case so kept 100% of his compensation.

Start Your Claim Today Call 01904 556600
Tell us about your case

Just send us a little bit about yourself and your claim and we will respond within 24 hours.


Get In Touch
Latest News

Local Fire Crews Recruited to Help Deal With Growing NHS Demands

The Worcestershire Acute Hospital Trust has agreed on plans to draft in fire crews to take patients home in a bid to prevent overcrowding […]

Read More

NHS Cancer Treatment Waiting Times Worst on Record

Over halfway through the year, new figures show that 133,843 cancer patients have not been treated within the relevant standards. NHS cancer treatment waiting […]

Read More

Diabetes Prescriptions Cost the NHS More than £1bn A Year

Diabetes prescriptions are costing the NHS in England more than £1 billion a year, according to new figures from NHS Digital, up by almost […]

Read More

Take a look back through our complete news archive

Follow us on Twitter

Have you suffered an injury as the result of a defective implant? Here at Pryers Solicitors, we know that things don't always go as planned - and we want to help. Speak to one of our friendly advisors and learn more now
https://t.co/i93etgaoCp

We are recruiting for some new roles now available at Pryers. This is an exciting opportunity to join our team and play a key part in shaping the future of our firm. Apply here now

https://t.co/dOWWHzFXQp

Load More...