£37,000 Settlement
Mr S contacted Pryers to claim compensation for a delay in diagnosing prostate cancer.
Enlarged prostate
In 2006, Mr S was found to have an enlarged prostate and he was put on medication for this. He returned to his GP on a yearly basis to have blood tests to detect the presence of prostate cancer. His results between 2006 and 2010 were persistently high but he was not referred for review.
In June 2010 he was urgently referred to the Urology department of the Defendant Trust due to a high test result. He was reassured that he did not need any further investigations. However, the possibility of cancer was not fully explored.
Mr S continued under the care of the urologist department at the Defendant Trust. Little was done by way of investigations despite Mr S insisting that he wanted a follow-up. He was eventually diagnosed with prostate cancer in late 2013.
Pryers instructed to investigate a delay in diagnosing prostate cancer
He instructed Pryers Solicitors to investigate whether there had been negligence in failing to diagnose his illness earlier and, if so, whether that had made a difference to his prognosis.
Sadly, Mr S passed away due to his prostate cancer shortly after instructing us and his wife then took on the claim.
Pryers obtained expert evidence from a Consultant Urologist and an Oncologist who advised the Defendant had been negligent in their management of the client. The experts advised that the cancer should have been diagnosed earlier and, had it been, then curative treatment could have been implemented.
The Defendant Trust initially denied any negligence relating to the care provided between 2006 and 2010. They later accepted that negligent treatment was provided in 2012 but they denied that this had any impact on Mr S’s condition or outcome. However, due to the risk of litigation, the Defendant agreed that settlement should be attempted.
Pryers put forward the losses sustained by Mrs S and following negotiations an award of £37,000 was agreed. The family were happy with this, particularly as they wished to avoid protracted litigation due to Mrs S being elderly.
