Please click on the titles to read the following case reports:
F A v Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust
H v Gloucestershire Primary Care Trust
M.J. (A Minor) v Dr Hayward (1) The Royal Berkshire NHS Foundation Trust (2)
Murtough-v-Swindon and Marlborough NHS Trust (2005)
V–v-Poole Hospital NHS Trust
F A v Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust
On 16 June 2003, the Claimant’s mother, who was approximately 32 weeks pregnant with the Claimant, attended the hospital with a suspected spontaneous rupture of the membranes. On clinical examination no evidence for this was found and she was discharged from hospital having had a high vaginal swab (HVS) taken. This swab was not reported until 21 June 2003.
In the meantime, on 18 June 2003, the Claimant’s mother was admitted to the hospital in labour and delivered the Claimant in the early hours of Thursday 19 June 2003. The Claimant and her mother were both discharged home on 20 June 2003.
Before being discharged, the Claimant’s mother noticed that her daughter was quite miserable and that she screamed when being picked up. She also developed a grunting noise but the Claimant’s mother was reassured by the midwives. The Claimant had significant problems with her breathing after discharge and seemed to be fitting. After a telephone call to the hospital, during which the Claimant’s mother was again reassured, the Community Midwife attended and realised that the Claimant was very ill. She arranged for her immediate admission to SCBU.
The Claimant suffered severe brain damage due to bacteria/septicaemia and meningitis caused by Group B Haemalytic Streptocuccus (GBS). The GBS was acquired from the Claimant’s mother’s genital tract and the symptoms started within 24 hours of her birth. Although the Claimant’s mother had signs of intra uterine infections soon after delivery with fever, tachycardia and a very high white blood cell count, neither she nor the Claimant were treated with antibiotics and were both allowed to go home on 20 June 2003. The Claimant was profoundly disabled from birth suffering from a mixed cerebral palsy with severe motor impairment, severe cognitive impairment and epilepsy. The Claimant was dependent on others for all aspects of basic care, the vast majority of which was provided by the Claimant’s mother. Tragically, the Claimant died aged 3 years and 3 months when an epileptic fit could not be controlled.
Please click here to read the full case report
Back to top
H v Gloucestershire Primary Care Trust
Out of Court settlement: 17.06.2009
The Claimant, a 33 year old woman, received £9,000 following the administration of the incorrect drug during the birth of her second child. During labour the treating midwife injected the Claimant with Syntometrine (a drug used to take away the afterbirth following delivery) rather than Pethidine (used for pain relief).
Claimant: female, aged 33 at the date of injury; 36 years old at the date of settlement.
Click here to view the full case report.
Back to top
M.J. (A Minor) v Dr Hayward (1) The Royal Berkshire NHS Foundation Trust (2)
In October 2008, the Claimant, a 12-year-old boy, received £1,800,000 for the injuries sustained during his birth in November 1995. In addition, the Claimant will receive index-linked annual payments for the rest of his life in relation to his care requirements.
On 9th November 1995 the Claimant’s Mother, who was then approximately 24 weeks pregnant with the Claimant, attended an ante-natal appointment with the First Defendant, her GP. During this appointment the Claimant’s Mother was noted to have raised blood pressure.
On 20th November 1995, the Claimant’s Mother attended an ante-natal appointment with a midwife, employed by the Second Defendant. It was again noted that the Claimant’s Mother had raised blood pressure.
The following day, on 21st November 1995, the Claimant’s Mother attended a further appointment with the same midwife. It was again noted that the Claimant’s Mother had raised blood pressure.
The Claimant’s Mother was next seen by her GP on 27th November 1995. By this time the Claimant’s Mother was experiencing severe swelling to her fingers and ankles. She was diagnosed with pre-eclamptic toxaemia and referred immediately to Hospital, where she was admitted at 17.35. A CTG was commenced which was very abnormal and it was decided that the Claimant needed to be delivered by caesarean section urgently.
The Claimant was delivered by caesarean section at 20.12 on 27th November 1995, at approximately 27 weeks gestation. The Claimant was in very poor condition upon his birth and required intubation. He remained in hospital until 30th January 1996.
The Claimant alleged that the First Defendant was negligent in failing to act upon the Claimant’s Mother’s raised blood pressure on 9th November 1995 and that the midwife employed by the Second Defendant was negligent in failing to act upon the Claimant’s Mother’s raised blood pressure on 21st November 1995.
Had the Claimant’s Mother been referred to hospital between 9th November 1995 and 21st November 1995 then she would have had daily CTG monitoring which would have revealed abnormalities by 24th November 1995 indicating that the Claimant should have been delivered early at this stage. The Claimant’s Mother would also have been administered steroids for 24 hours prior to delivering the Claimant which would have reduced the risk of injury to the Claimant.
As a result of the negligence of both Defendants the Claimant suffered pain and suffering, loss of amenity, reduced life expectancy and catastrophic injuries. The Claimant suffered severe antenatal hypoxia ischaemia between 25th November 1995 and 27th November 1995 and severe respiratory distress syndrome after his birth. As a result the Claimant suffered permanent damage to his brain in the form of Periventricular Leukomalacia and an intraventricular haemorrhage.
The Claimant suffers from spastic diplegic cerebral palsy, (primarily affecting his legs), moderate to severe learning difficulties and epilepsy. The Claimant is able to walk only with the assistance of a Kaye walker or crutches. He is unable to dress himself and is doubly incontinent. He is able to speak but is unable to carry on a conversation. The Claimant will be unable to live independently, will be unable to work and will not be able to handle his own financial affairs. The claimant's life expectancy was estimated to be reduced by 15 years as a result of his injuries.
Court proceedings were issued and witness statements and expert evidence obtained. Negligence was admitted by both Defendants however they contended that the Claimant would still have had problems with school failure (including learning difficulties), poor attention span, behavioural difficulties and motor in-coordination as a result of being born prematurely, and not as a result of their negligence. This argument was not accepted by the Claimant.
A settlement meeting took place in July 2008 and following negotiations the Defendant agreed to pay the Claimant damages in the form of a lump sum of £1.8 million and, in addition, index linked annual payments for the rest of the Claimant’s life of £54,000 until age 19, £105,000 until age 55 and £110,000 after age 55 to meet the cost of the Claimant’s ongoing care requirements. This is estimated to equate to £4.4 million total settlement over the Claimant’s expected lifetime. This settlement was approved by the Court on 16th October 2008.
Simon Elliman of Withy King Solicitors was instructed on behalf of the Claimant in January 2004 and brought this significant claim to settlement within 4.5 years.
Please click here to view the full case report.
Back to top
.Murtough-v-Swindon and Marlborough NHS Trust (2005)
QBD (Holland J) 24/2/2005
The claimant, a 7-year-old girl, received £1,535,000 for the brain injuries sustained during her birth in June 1997. The claimant suffered from spastic quadriplegic cerebral palsy and microcephaly. The claimant's motor abilities, vision and communication were all severely impaired and her life expectancy was estimated at 15 years.
Click here to view the full report.
Back to top
V–v-Poole Hospital NHS Trust
V attended the Defendant Hospital in order to give birth to her first child. Despite her medical records clearly indicating an allergy to elastoplast, her epidural was secured using elastoplast as a result of which she suffered a severe allergic reaction.
V’s back became very red, and she developed tiny blisters which were extremely uncomfortable. V was prescribed steroid cream and painkillers. The tiny blisters eventually became one large blister which resulted in the skin becoming very tight, and it was extremely difficult for V to move for 3 weeks following the birth of her first child.
This matter was settled for the sum of £1,900.
Back to top
