Significant settlement for cancer misdiagnosis which led to the unnecessary loss of a lung.

Mr Pardoe attended his GP complaining of a persistent chesty cough, night sweats and a sharp pain on the right side of his chest when he coughed. He was prescribed antibiotics which proved ineffective and the cough remained.
Mr Pardoe was referred by his GP for a chest X-ray which took place one week after his initial appointment and was told something had shown up on the scan in his left lung. He was then referred to hospital by his GP under the two-week cancer protocol.
Mr Pardoe underwent investigations including bronchial washings, chest x-ray, and CT scan. He also received a further three separate courses of antibiotics (two courses for one week, and one course for two weeks) from his GP throughout this time.
As a firm diagnosis could not be made, Mr Pardoe underwent a PET scan which suggested cancer may have been present.
It was however noted that this would require confirmation through a biopsy, because of the possibility of infection such as tuberculosis.
Mr Pardoe was referred to a Consultant Thoracic Surgeon at a second hospital for consideration of surgical resection. Following this consultation he was then admitted for a left upper lobectomy.
Mr Pardoe underwent surgery however, whilst preparing the lobe for removal during surgery, significant bleeding occurred from the left main pulmonary artery and resection had to be revised to include the whole of the left lung.
Subsequent pathological examination of the removed lung was carried out and Mr Pardoe was advised that he had in fact been suffering with an abscess in the lung. Consequently, the surgery had been unnecessary.
The impact of the negligent care.
Following the unnecessary surgery, Mr Pardoe then followed a stormy post-operative passage as he suffered a haemorrhage and developed sepsis in the pneumonectomy cavity, requiring an extensive hospital stay.
Mr Pardoe brought a case on the basis that he could have been treated with an extended course of high dose broad spectrum antibiotics for a period of between four weeks and four months which, on the balance of probabilities, would have effectively treated the lung abscess. Had he been treated in this way he would have made an uneventful recovery to his “pre-abscess state” within some three months.
He would have then avoided the complication of the surgery that he suffered (haemorrhage and the development of sepsis in the pneumonectomy cavity) and would not have lost 40% of pulmonary function. Additionally, he was left with an increased risk that should he develop cancer of the other lung in the future his treatment options would be confined to chemotherapy rather than having the option of further surgery.
Additionally, Mr Pardoe was at risk of developing infection in the pneumonectomy space with or without sepsis.
Although Mr Pardoe’s psychological condition improved once he became aware that he had in fact not had cancer, he was left with a deep mistrust of medical care.
Seeking legal support.
Mr Pardoe wanted to investigate a case for the incorrect diagnosis of cancer and, during the course of our investigations with our medical experts, it became apparent that Mr Pardoe could have been treated with an extended course of high-dose broad spectrum antibiotics for a period of between four weeks and four months, which was likely to have effectively treated his lung abscess when instead he ended up losing a lung.
On the balance of probabilities, if he had received the correct course of antibiotics, he would have made an uneventful recovery to his “pre-abscess state” within some three months.
We explained the process of a claim to him and discussed his hopes, fears and concerns both about bringing a claim and about his condition and his future.
Mr Pardoe pursued a claim against both of the hospitals who had been involved in his care on the basis that they both failed to carry out appropriate investigations to correctly diagnose him.
Both hospitals denied liability throughout, and it was necessary to proceed to trial. The matter was complicated due to the risk that Mr Pardoe might, at some stage in the future develop infection in the space where his lung had been, with or without sepsis, and was at an increased risk of mortality if he were to develop cancer in the other lung.
Full investigations were required in relation to these risks and a decision made that, given that the risks were more than fanciful, provisional damages would be sought. This would mean that Mr Pardoe or, in the event of his death, his estate, would be able to return to Court following settlement if he were to develop these complications for a further award of compensation.
The outcome.
Mr Pardoe was successful at trial achieving a five figure settlement and was awarded provisional damages in addition to this. This was an excellent result taking into account his age and likely future needs and helped to provide him with future peace of mind and security for both himself and his wife.
Medical negligence cases such as this require specialist solicitors who understand both the complexities of the law and, also, the importance of putting the client at the heart of the case, ensuring that they fully understand the process and achieve the best result. RWK Goodman are specialists in medical negligence and always believe in putting the client first.
Mr Pardoe himself described how he felt understood and listened to throughout the process and how we were able to take his thoughts and fears into consideration as the case unfolded.
Legal insight from our team of medical negligence experts.
View more articles related to Inquests and Fatal Claims and Medical negligence