Pryers represented Mr A in successful case, further to a recent Supreme Court decision on informed consent.
Mr A had initially attended his GP with intermittent Carpal Tunnel symptoms in his right hand. He was referred to the Defendant Trust for further treatment. Instead of discussing alternatives with Mr A, his doctors instead listed him straight away for surgery.
Unbeknown to Mr A, there were less invasive treatment options that would have probably resulted in a full resolution of his intermittent symptoms. Mr A was not told about this and thought that surgery was his only option.
Unfortunately, as a result of the surgery, Mr A suffered a serious nerve injury, causing permanent damage to his hand and a loss of grip strength.
Upon considering the medical evidence and particularly the consent process, Pryers successfully argued that the Hospital had been negligent for failing to obtain Mr A’s informed consent to surgery.
Instead of proceeding straight to an operation, doctors should have told Mr A about the alternatives, allowing him to weigh up the risks and benefits of surgery and to make an informed choice.
Mr A received £100,000 in compensation.
This is just one example of the successful application of the recent decision of Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board  UKSC 11, in which the Supreme Court ruled that a medical practitioner must take reasonable care to ensure that a patient is aware of any material risks involved in a proposed treatment, and of reasonable alternatives. Only then will a patient be able to make a properly informed decision about the proposed treatment and to give their informed consent. More on this subject can be found here.