In July 2019 our client went camping for 10 days with her father. During the week prior to the camping trip our client had been complaining of intermittent hip pain following a school cricket day. The pain came and went and our client’s parents did not think much of it but advised that they were going to take her to the GP when she got back from the trip, if it persisted.

On the last day of the camping trip, our client jumped down a ledge and her leg gave way underneath her when she landed, which caused considerable pain. Her father took her to Newton Abbot Hospital where she was seen by a doctor who was unsure what was wrong so called in another doctor.

The second doctor advised our client to walk around the room, which she struggled with. He thereafter advised that she had just torn a muscle in her thigh and gave her painkillers. She was told to continue to mobilise but when asked about an x-ray, the first doctor advised that they do not tend to x-ray children and gestured to her genitals.

Our client and her father got back to London late that evening. Over the next few days our client was encouraged to mobilise, as advised, but she struggled and was in a lot of pain. Our client’s mother noticed that our client’s leg looked misaligned.

Three days after returning to London, our client’s father received a call from the first doctor at Newton Abbot advising that she was still unsure about our client and that it was not sitting well with her. He told her how our client was, and she advised them to go to A&E if she wasn’t better in a few days.

Our client’s mother took our client to A&E at St. George’s Hospital the following morning where our client was x-rayed straight away and diagnosed with a Slipped Upper Femoral Epiphysis (SUFE), a condition where the head of the upper leg bone slips off the back of the pelvis. Our client’s mother was advised that they had missed the ideal 24-hour window for surgery and she needed to wait a week to have surgery to have screws fitted in her hip.

The defendant admitted that the care provided to our client in July 2019 was substandard, in that the assessment and examination of our client at the Emergency Department fell below the standard expected. It was also admitted that there was a delay of six to seven days before our client underwent surgery. It was accepted that surgery should have been performed within 48 hours of diagnosis of SUFE. However, it was not admitted that our client would have been operated on in a different way, had it not been for the delay. Specifically, it was maintained that our client would in any event have developed avascular necrosis. Avascular necrosis is when bone tissue dies because it doesn’t have enough blood flow. In the early stages this can cause an aching pain that worsens with weight bearing. Later stages can involve increasing pain, even at rest, reduced joint movement, limping, bone collapse and arthritis of the joint. In advanced cases joint replacement surgery is needed.

Our client is permanently injured, and though she is currently able to walk it is painful and she has a limp, the extent of which varies depending upon on how much pain she is in. Our client’s mother has been advised that the blood supply to her femoral head had been compromised and she will more than likely develop avascular necrosis and need a hip replacement.  She is likely to require hip replacement surgery in the future but this would have been required in any event.

Our client was born at Doncaster Royal Infirmary in September 2015. The key allegation we brought on her behalf was that there was a negligent failure to properly assess all the features of her mother’s presentation, with the result that she was delivered by caesarean section; with appropriate care this would not have happened.

We argued that the following features of our client’s mother’s presentation were not correctly assessed or appropriately weighed in the balance:

• there had been no membrane rupture;
• there was no change in the appearance of the cervix – it was described as posterior and closed on examination at 11:56 and later at about 20:50;
• there had been a negative fibronectin test;
• the CTG was at all times reassuring.

It was our client’s case that a proper analysis of these features would or should have resulted in her mother remaining in hospital for a period of observation which would likely have resulted in her contractions subsiding, her pregnancy progressing normally and our client being born at 34 weeks (or more probably at or after 37 weeks).

With delivery after 34 weeks our client would probably have avoided intra ventricular haemorrhage (IVH) and periventricular leukomalacia which are the causes of her brain injury.

The defendant admitted that our client suffered an IVH and that had she been born at 34 weeks the risk of her suffering an IVH would have been materially reduced. However, the defendant did not admit that the IVH would on the balance of probabilities have been avoided with delivery at or after 34 weeks.

In summary the defendant’s position was that the clinicians were balancing the risk of uterine rupture, which had the potential for a very grave outcome and possibly fatal outcome for our client’s mother and/or our client, against the risks associated with delivering our client at 27+6 weeks gestation.

After working towards a trial on liability and attending a settlement meeting this case was ultimately settled through mediation on 15 October 2025. At mediation, the defendant maintained it would not make a discounted liability offer. Negotiations ensued and a monetary offer of £3,000,000 was ultimately accepted.

Our client’s symptoms are unlikely to improve. Having regard to the nature and extent of her injuries, it is likely that her life expectancy will be limited to age 44 years.

A Harmed Patient Pathway been developed by Action against Medical Accidents (AvMA) in conjunction with the Harmed Patient Alliance (HPA); they campaigned for change in how healthcare organisations provide care to patients recovering from the trauma of avoidable harm. The final version of the Pathway was published in December 2025, following consultation in late 2024 of over 150 harmed patients, families and professionals. It is a framework that encourages honesty and meaningful compassion in response to the physical and psychological effects that can follow from avoidable harm.

The Pathway has encouraged healthcare providers to prevent and minimise the suffering of harmed patients and families by supporting them after harm has occurred, both physically and in relation to emotional distress. This extends to “second harm” which is caused following an incident of avoidable harm, further compounding the harm.

The framework consists of practical commitments to manage the impact of harm on patients and families correctly. The guidance offered by the Pathway will strengthen “after-harm” practice in the NHS and ensure the experience of harmed patients and families aligns with the commitments of compassionate treatment in patient safety responses.

It is recognised that individuals who have suffered healthcare harm need specific support in order to ensure they are cared for and to reduce the risk of any further harm. The final version of the Pathway sets out six core commitments that should be adhered to by healthcare organisations:

1. Ensuring compassionate and honest communication with harmed patients and their families that supports dignity, trust and just relations.
2. Ensuring that harmed patients and families get the support they need as far as possible and AvMA assist them with access to specialist independent advice and support in order to support wellbeing.
3. To support meaningful involvement of harmed patients and families in investigations or other review processes related to their treatment.
4. To provide harmed patients and families with opportunities to contribute to patient-safety and patient experience improvements in a meaningful way.
5. Harmed patients and families may choose to use external or parallel processes to seek answers and accountability as well as to improve safety for others. AvMA will not allow this to change or needlessly delay engagement with them.
6. Prioritise human wellbeing, trust and just relations in all they do.

There are three core concepts that underpin the six commitments, firstly that a moral duty is owed to patients and their families who have been harmed to do no more harm and support recovery; secondly to recognise the impact that harm would have had on the patient and their family and strive to meet their needs by using the pathway to manage healthcare harm, and finally that meeting the needs of harmed patients and families is an essential part of “just” and “restorative” patient safety culture.

The Pathway is designed to be tailored to the specific circumstances of someone who has been subjected to healthcare harm and not to be used as a checklist, this will ensure that the possibility of enduring secondary harm whether personally or to family members will be reduced.

If your provider adopts the Pathway, you can expect them to meet expectations centred around respect, compassion and supporting those affected by harm in their journey to recovery and to recognise the moral duty to care for those who have been harmed.

The finalisation of the Harmed Patient Pathway is a positive step and is a welcome development. In implementing a comprehensive framework, it will work to uphold a high standard of help to patients and families who have suffered avoidable harm.

It is recognised that unfortunately some avoidable harm cannot be undone, however there should be a duty upon medical staff to facilitate a recovery process to meet harmed patients’ needs as much as possible and reduce the risk of secondary or compounded harm.

Now that the final version of the Pathway has been finalised the next stage is for the NHS to adopt the Pathway formally.

AvMA have recognised that the full across the board implementation of the Pathway may take time due to the current resources of the NHS. Patients and their families deserve the necessary support after suffering harm resulting in the negligence of NHS medical care.

When our client was born, her delivery was complicated by her shoulder becoming stuck; a complication known as shoulder dystocia. Unfortunately, the staff on duty at the time failed to undertake the necessary manoeuvres to free our client’s shoulder, partly because there were not enough staff present initially in order to do so.

As a result of our client’s shoulder becoming stuck, there was a delay in her delivery during which she suffered a brain injury. What’s more, the clinicians involved in her birth employed too much force when delivering our client (particularly in a downward direction) which meant she suffered a right sided brachial plexus injury, leaving her with Erb’s palsy.

The birth injury that our client suffered has left her with long-term disability in her right arm, with limited ability to rotate or extend her arm or wrist. Despite being right-side dominant, she has become left-handed as a result of her injuries.

The Erb’s palsy causing our client’s disability resulted in abnormal growth of her right arm too, meaning it is shorter and smaller than her left arm. As she grew up our client underwent multiple surgeries in order to allow for greater movement in her arm, leaving her with visible scars. All of this added up to a significant and permanent cosmetic defect, easily visible at a conversational distance.

Our client’s physical injuries have been compounded by the mild brain injury she suffered at birth. She finds it harder to process information as a result of the brain injury, which has affected her academic performance and ultimately her employment prospects. This was a complex part of the claim to prove and value, but it underpins the large amount of money awarded.

The Defendant Trust in the case, United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust, initially denied liability for our client’s injuries. Therefore, court proceedings were issued in 2019 and a split Trial was ordered to firstly decide if the Trust was liable for our client’s injuries. Two rounds of settlement meetings were held in the run up to trial, wherein our solicitors argued in relation to allegations that help was not summoned in a timely manner, the manoeuvres to release shoulder dystocia (McRoberts and suprapubic pressure) were not executed properly, and whether causation could be proven in relation to our client’s brain injury. Eventually liability was settled at 70%.

When it came to assessing the long-term impacts of our client’s injury and so how much compensation should be paid (quantum), our solicitors argued on a number of key issues including future care needs and what assistive technology might be required. Expert witnesses were instructed across neuropsychology, occupational therapy, care, orthopaedics, physiotherapy and assistive technology in order to understand our client’s future needs in detail. The functional impact of our client’s mild brain injury was contested by the Defendant, whose evidence differed greatly from that of our expert witnesses. Eventually however, settlement was reached in early 2024.

The settlement has provided support for our client for life, including psychological support and also money to recognise that it will take her longer to achieve her academic goals, and ultimately to allow her to work less hours to take account of the physical tiredness associated with her ongoing issues.

The money will also allow for future physio and other therapies.

Of particular importance to our client was to help her to manage her ability to achieve her potential in competitive horse riding.

Our client having financial independence, and a secure academic and working life, and being fully supported as she ages has given her family peace of mind. Her mum also describes how pursing the claim, and finding out about what happened to her and her daughter and why, has provided closure for them all.

Losing a limb or undergoing an amputation is life changing. If the injury happened abroad or involved an international element, this will inevitably affect the claims process, potentially the victim’s entitlement to compensation, and the quantum of damages. It is essential to instruct a specialist solicitor with expertise in travel law and cross-border claims. Understanding the victim’s rights and the process is essential to securing the support and compensation they deserve.

An international claim can result from many scenarios, such as:

• Road traffic accidents abroad, or in England & Wales involving a foreign vehicle;
• Accidents at work overseas;
• Injuries caused by animals abroad;
• Holiday accidents (e.g., slips, trips, falls) in the course of a package holiday or not;
• Incidents on planes or boats;
• Sports accidents, including skiing, water sports, or extreme sports.

International injury claims can be complex. With specialist legal advice and support, combined with language skills and an understanding of cultural and practical differences, the victim will navigate the process and secure the compensation they deserve.

RWK Goodman’s Accidents abroad team is headed by Maud Lepez, a dual qualified solicitor and French avocate, with over 15 years personal injury cross-jurisdictional experience. Maud represents clients residing in the UK injured in France and in other countries, and foreign clients injured in the United Kingdom, having suffered the most serious and life-changing injuries, including amputations.

International injury claims always involve a question of jurisdiction (in which country the claim can be brought) and of governing law (which law applies to the claim). These are not only complex legal questions but, when there is a choice of jurisdiction and/or applicable law, having direct knowledge and experience of the different legal systems involved is invaluable in order to make strategic choices in the client’s best interests. For instance, what evidential weight a court will give to witness evidence versus documentary evidence in a claim varies hugely from one jurisdiction to another.

When pursuing a cross-border claim, several legal issues may arise:

International cases often involve additional complexities, such as:

• Language barrier;
• Experts’ assessments in another country;
• Access to rehabilitation funded by the defendant, or not;
• Jurisdiction and applicable law disputes;
• Evidence requirements and standards;
• Calculating losses under different legal systems;
• Attending trial abroad, implying to travel and give oral evidence via an interpreter;
• Enforcing a judgment in another country.

Funding options vary by jurisdiction, but common methods include:

• Conditional Fee Agreements (No Win, No Fee);
• Legal expenses insurance;
• Private funding;
• Hybrid approaches, combining a fixed fee and a success fee;
• Co-counsel agreements with foreign lawyers.

RWK Goodman’s specialist solicitors always consider the options available and advise on the most appropriate for each claim.

For many people living with limb loss, their injuries often result from negligence – whether through a road traffic collision, workplace accident, or substandard medical care.

If negligence is proven, you are entitled to compensation which can make a significant difference by:

• Supporting your recovery;
• Improving your quality of life and independence;
• Providing financial security for you and your loved ones.

Many people wrongly assume legal advice is expensive and out of reach, which can discourage them from seeking help. In reality, clients are often surprised to discover they have insurance that covers potential claim costs, or that their claim can be funded through a Conditional Fee Agreement (CFA) at no risk to them.

Initial advice should always be free and without obligation. I encourage anyone considering a claim to get in touch with a specialist solicitor and explore funding options available to them.

Your solicitor will likely work with you for the entire duration of your claim—a process that can take several years. Choosing someone you trust is essential. I recommend carefully considering these factors:

Personal Injury and Clinical Negligence claims are complex, involving both law and medicine. While many firms will accept these cases, relatively few have a proven track record in limb loss and limb difference claims. A genuinely specialist firm will be better placed to help you fully explore your claim and to secure the best outcome for you. Look for solicitors with specialist experience and strong reputations.

Expertise matters, but so does rapport. Your solicitor will represent you throughout your claim, so it’s important you feel comfortable working with them.

Recovery can be challenging and emotional – both for you and your loved ones. A good solicitor will:

• Understand your situation;
• Show compassion;
• Tailor their approach to your needs.

Once you’ve made contact with the potential firm, don’t hesitate to ask questions about why they’re the right firm for you and how they’ll support your claim. Any reputable solicitor will welcome these questions and be comfortable answering them for you. Having confidence in your choice matters.

While most claimants stay with the same firm throughout their case, there are valid reasons to consider changing representation. Although you can only have one solicitor at a time for a limb loss claim, switching firms during the course of a claim is usually straightforward if you decide to do so.

If you feel comfortable doing so, start by discussing your concerns with your current solicitor. Explain why you’re considering a change and give them the opportunity to address the issues or adjust how things are handled going forward. Often, this can resolve matters and restore confidence. However, if you remain dissatisfied, it’s wise to explore alternative representation without delay.

Changing firms shouldn’t cost you anything. In most cases, the new firm can take over on the same terms as your original agreement, so you shouldn’t be disadvantaged by making the switch. Your prospective solicitor can confirm this when you first approach them about taking on your case.

Choosing the right solicitor isn’t just a legal decision; it’s a personal one. Limb loss claims are personal and complex, often integral to shaping your future recovery and independence. A specialist solicitor brings not only technical expertise but also the understanding and commitment needed to secure the best possible outcome for you and your loved ones. Take the time to choose wisely because the right support can make all the difference.

Just over a year ago, we were privileged to be asked to host the Limbless Association’s first ‘Lunch & Learn’ in Oxford. This took place in our Oxford office in November 2024. We are now on the point of hosting the fourth such event and it has been exciting to see how this has progressed, with new people joining and many attendees becoming regulars.

The idea behind Lunch & Learn events is simple. They bring together amputees and their families to learn about how to tackle the realities of life after amputation and for coffee, lunch and chat.

Attendees have had a chance to hear from a variety of speakers: Limbless Association staff on what the charity can offer by way of support; outside speakers, who have so far included a prosthetist (Jamie Gillespie of Proactive) and a psychologist (Omar Kowlessar); and solicitors from RWK Goodman who specialise in advising those who have suffered life-changing amputation injuries.

Outside speakers are chosen who can address real concerns. Questions and open discussion are an important part of these sessions. I have been struck how willing attendees are to talk openly in a group setting about their individual experiences and to learn, not only from the speakers but also from one another. Plenty of time is allowed for informal conversation over coffee and lunch and this is a vital part of what the events offer. One of the most moving things has been to hear attendees comment how much they appreciate the chance for the first time simply to get out of the house and meet with others in a similar boat, outside of a clinical setting. And it is not only the amputees themselves who benefit but also the members of their family who accompany them.

Louise Smith was fortunate to catch up with Jane Loney, who provided the following update.

The Government has recently published its new Road Safety Strategy, setting out its intentions to reduce the number of deaths and serious injuries on UK roads. While the UK was once regarded as a global leader in road safety, other nations have made greater progress in recent decades. As a result, the UK now ranks as the fourth safest country in Europe, measured by road deaths per million people.

According to Government statistics on reported road traffic collisions, in 2024 there were 1,602 fatalities and 27,865 people seriously injured. Of those killed or seriously injured, 20% were motorcyclists and 18% were young people aged between 17 and 24. These figures underline both the scale of the problem and the disproportionate impact on certain groups of road users.

The overarching vision of the Strategy is to ensure that everyone can travel safely on UK roads, regardless of their mode of transport. Two specific targets have been set:

• a 65% reduction in the overall number of deaths and serious injuries by 2035; and
• a 70% reduction in deaths and serious injuries involving children under the age of 16.

To deliver these objectives, the Strategy is built around four core themes, each supported by specific proposals and interventions.

This theme includes proposals such as a minimum learning period for learner drivers, a reduction in the blood alcohol limit, mandatory eyesight testing for drivers over 70, and the development of national guidance on road safety education and training.

Measures include the introduction of new safety technologies for certain vehicle categories, improved road safety data collection, further research into headlamp glare, and enhanced vehicle safety standards and crash testing.

The Strategy proposes updated guidance on local speed limits and the use of speed cameras, as well as a review of road classifications, particularly in relation to rural roads.

Proposals under this theme include a lower blood alcohol limit with a separate threshold for novice drivers, a review of drink- and drug-driving penalties, and wider consideration of enforcement and sanctions for offences such as uninsured driving, hit-and-run incidents, illegal number plates and failure to wear a seatbelt.

To oversee delivery of the Strategy and monitor progress against its targets, the Government will establish a new Road Safety Board, chaired by the Minister for Local Transport. The Board will include representatives from Government departments and delivery bodies, supported by an Expert Advisory Panel comprising organisations such as the emergency services, road safety groups, and motorcycle, professional driver and rider associations.

This governance structure is a welcome development, recognising the importance of drawing on practical experience when shaping and delivering road safety policy.

For those who represent victims of road traffic collisions, prevention is only one part of the picture. Even with improved education, enforcement and vehicle safety, road traffic collisions will continue to occur, and when they do, the consequences for individuals and families can be devastating.

Members of the Motor Accident Solicitors Society (MASS) see these consequences every day. For more than 30 years, MASS has campaigned for effective road safety measures while also working to protect access to justice for accident victims.

The Society has long raised concerns about issues such as uninsured and untraced driving, persistently inadequate penalties for serious road traffic offences, and more recently, the rapid growth of e-scooters and e-bikes without a comprehensive legislative framework. These issues continue to contribute to serious and avoidable injuries.

MASS will continue to support initiatives that aim to make roads safer for all users and will engage constructively with the consultation process arising from this latest Strategy. However, it is vital that policy discussions do not overlook what happens when prevention fails.

It is an unavoidable reality that road traffic collisions will continue to occur. When they do, victims will continue to need, and deserve, access to independent legal advice to guide and support them through a complex legal process designed to compensate them for loss and injury suffered through no fault of their own.

The legal process following a serious road traffic collision is often complex and challenging, particularly for individuals who are simultaneously coping with physical injury, psychological trauma and major life disruption. Against a backdrop of significant reform within the personal injury sector, access to specialist legal advice is more important than ever.

MASS and its expert Members, including firms such as RWK Goodman, play a crucial role in ensuring that accident victims are properly supported, that rehabilitation and care needs are identified at an early stage, and that fair compensation is secured to meet long-term needs. Accident victims must never be marginalised within an increasingly complex and restrictive landscape.

The primary aim of MASS is to bring justice to the victims of road traffic accidents. The Society prides itself on being recognised as an expert voice on all matters involving RTAs, and on ensuring that accident victims remain central to policy development, rule changes and access to justice.

Members of MASS are specialists across the full spectrum of RTA-related personal injury work, from damage-only claims and minor injuries to catastrophic injury and fatal cases. They understand not only the legal challenges involved, but also the profound personal impact that serious accidents can have on individuals and their families.

The human consequences of road traffic collisions cannot be fully understood through statistics alone. This was powerfully illustrated at the MASS annual conference two years ago, when delegates heard from a woman who lost the use of one arm and underwent a below-knee amputation following a motorcycle collision in which her partner was killed.

Telling her subsequent journey of recovery alongside the experts involved was so powerful and poignant that even the many experienced solicitors in the room, many of whom had seen such cases countless times before, were deeply moved and full of admiration for her determination and bravery.

What this real-life example showed is the vital importance of teamwork and collaboration of all the relevant parties in these cases. The lawyers to take care of the legal side and ensure that all the financial, rehabilitation and care needs are appropriate and realised for the long term. The case manager and rehab specialists who not only liaise with the lawyer but work tirelessly with the patient so they can achieve their maximum recovery. The medical experts who undertake the necessary surgery and/or treatment and in this case, the prosthetists who with their specialism helped the amputee to achieve some degree of normality in life.

Such cases also have a profound impact on families and loved ones, who often provide essential support but can themselves be overlooked. This is where charitable organisations play a vital role.

While MASS is a not-for-profit organisation, it has long recognised the importance of supporting charities connected with road traffic accident victims. Each year, the Society supports a charity that plays a meaningful role in helping those affected by serious injury.

For 2026, MASS is proud to support the Limbless Association. The LA provides practical and emotional support to amputees and their families, recognising the devastating impact that limb loss can have. By offering early intervention, guidance and connections to specialist services and peer support, the Limbless Association plays a crucial role in helping individuals navigate life after amputation.

Asked for comment, RWK Goodman Partner, Louise Hart had the following to say about the MASS/Limbless Association Partnership:

“RWK Goodman are delighted that MASS, who represent the interests of road traffic victims across the UK have chosen the Limbless Association as its chosen charity this year. This recognition will enable the Limbless Association to provide further support to those who have suffered limb loss across the country. RWK Goodman is proud to support both organisations and privileged to be on the legal panel for both MASS and the Limbless Association.”

Deborah Bent, CEO at the Limbless Association, comments below:

“We’re delighted to have been selected as MASS’ Charity of the Year. We’re incredibly grateful to have the opportunity to throw a spotlight on the work of the Limbless Association. As well as our support services, the charity has always worked strategically to ensure that we’re influencing prosthetics, rehabilitation and related agendas. We look forward to working with MASS and its members including RWK Goodman, being one of the LA’s extremely valued legal panel members.  We look forward to working collaboratively to raise awareness of the challenges amputees face and improve the lives of those affected.”

While the personal injury system remains inherently adversarial, its underlying purpose must always be to place the accident victim at the centre of the process. Road safety strategies and legal reforms alike must therefore be informed by collaboration, compassion and real-world experience.

Road safety strategies rightly focus on prevention, education and enforcement. These efforts are essential and should be supported. However, no system can eliminate risk entirely. When accidents occur, the response must be just as robust, compassionate and well-resourced as the preventative framework.

We all want to be and feel safer on our roads. But until a world without road traffic collisions exists, those who fight for justice, coordinate rehabilitation and support victims through life-changing injuries are an essential part of the road safety ecosystem. Ensuring their role is recognised and sustained is fundamental to achieving meaningful and lasting improvements in road safety.