In February 2010 *Julie* attended her local Accident and Emergency department in the midlands as she was suffering abdominal pain and vomiting. She was admitted with suspected kidney stones.
Four days later Julie underwent surgery to remove the kidney stones, however, during the surgery the surgeon found that he did not have the correct size scope to access and remove the stone and therefore had to insert a stent into Julie’s ureter so alleviate her pain. The plan was for Julie to return to hospital within three weeks to have the stent and the stone removed.
Julie had planned to go abroad to be married six weeks after her surgery and asked her surgeon whether this would still be OK. She was reassured that it would be because she would have her surgery within three weeks.
As Julie had not heard anything from the hospital before she was due to go abroad she decided to go. Unfortunately, before her wedding day she because to suffer such pain from the stent and remaining kidneys stones that she had to be prescribed very strong pain relief. As a result of which Julie has little memory of her wedding day.
On her return to England Julie contacted the hospital to chase her appointment for the second surgery, but was informed that she was not on the list. Julie chased this appointment every week as she was continuing to suffer considerable pain and discomfort.
Eventually, in June 2010 Julie was referred for the surgery, which was successful and resolved her pain and discomfort.
In October 2010 Julie contacted Amy Lynn at Pryers Solicitors. After initial investigations it was established that Julie should have been provided with the surgery within three weeks and that the delay in surgery had been caused by administrative errors.
A letter outlining the failings of the Defendant hospital and the effect on Julie was sent to the Defendant in February 2011. The Defendant responded making some admissions but denying that the surgeon had not had the correct instruments in theatre in February 2010. To compensate Julie for two months pain and suffering and the effect on her wedding day the Defendant offered £6,000 which Julie was happy to accept.
The Defendant also paid all of Julie’s legal costs so she kept 100% of her compensation and had nothing to pay throughout her case.