*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.