Medical negligence claims against Bart's Health Hospital, London

We acted for a widow and her children in a case against Bart’s Health NHS Trust following a failure to diagnose and appropriately treat the deceased’s (‘GZM’) sepsis. GZM had undergone a haemorrhoid banding procedure at his GP surgery which unfortunately resulted in an infection.

GZM attended the Accident and Emergency Department whereupon there was a negligent delay in identifying that he was presenting with sepsis, and an associated delay in providing him with broad spectrum antibiotics. Unfortunately, by the time he was provided with the correct antibiotic regimen GZM had already gone into septic shock. Sadly, this led to multi-organ failure he passed away shortly thereafter. Damages were sought from the Trust and included a sizable dependency element as GZM was the main breadwinner of the family household.

We acted for AZD in a case against Bart’s Health NHS Trust following a failure to diagnose and appropriately treat a four-part fracture dislocation of the neck of his left humerus. AZD’s injury was instead treated as a simple dislocation and was manipulated back into the shoulder socket by the Defendant (a closed reduction).

Instead, AZD should have undergone an open reduction and internal fixation procedure. As a result of the negligence, AZD suffered permanent neurological damage to his shoulder and upper arm, with associated motor and sensory loss. He suffered a disadvantage on the open labour market and was restricted in returning to his profession as a freelance potter and sculptor. Damages were sought and successfully obtained to reflect AZD’s pain, suffering, and financial losses.

We acted for TT in this case which concerned an extravasation injury during an iron infusion. Approximately 10 minutes after commencing the infusion, TT complained she felt pressure in her hand which, on the balance of probabilities, was as a result of the infusion leaking into the surrounding tissues as it had not been inserted correctly.

Although the infusion was initially stopped, it was a breach of duty of care to have then continued the infusion and for it to be stopped every ten minutes. There was a failure to urgently discontinue the infusion and remove the cannula for it to then be re-sited. In total, the infusion took 2.5 hours to complete when it should have only been 30 minutes. During this time, the infusion was not infusing correctly into the vein which resulted in discolouration of the skin and discomfort in the arm, which lasted at least 12-16 months.