Medical negligence claims against John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford.

We acted on the behalf of a client who suffered hypoxic ischaemic brain damage and consequently from bilateral dystonic cerebral palsy following the negligent management of her delivery at the John Radcliffe Hospital in Oxford. We argued that Hospital staff failed to act upon signs of fetal distress and that she should have been born earlier.

She can walk but with difficulty and has poor core stability and walks with a broad, ataxic, gait. She can manage to walk a mile without difficulty. She uses a wheelchair for greater distances and is at risk of falling if she tries to run or is using stairs. In addition, she has poor grip and fine motor control. She will always have care needs and her speech is dysarthritic.

Liability was admitted and proceedings were then stayed until the Claimant reached the age of 15 years in order that a more definite prognosis could be reached. During that time a large interim payment was received and managed by the Compensation Protection Unit at RWK Goodman and used to buy and adapt appropriate accommodation, set up an initial care package as well as purchase aids and therapies.

The claim ultimately settled for a lump sum plus annual payments for care for life and the settlement will now mean that the Claimant will have significant levels of care and support in all aspects for the remainder of her life.

In the first few years of his life the Claimant manifested a number of clinical symptoms for which a unifying diagnosis was not made. These included a chronic urticarial rash, iron deficiency anaemia, hepatosplenomegaly and an elevated peripheral white blood cell count. He then started suffering from general joint pain and papilloedema

Following treatment initially with serial lumbar punctures and then optic nerve sheath fenestrations, the Claimant underwent insertion of a lumbo-peritoneal shunt. The shunt did not contain any anti-siphon or anti-gravity type valve to regulate against excessive CSF drainage. Over the years the Claimant’s condition continued to deteriorate until he suffered a catastrophic collapse associated with a severe elevation of intracranial pressure that required emergency treatment with an external ventricular drain, a decompressive craniectomy and later a foramen magnum decompression operation.

Following this surgery the Claimant had initially been unresponsive and tetraplegic. However, he eventually made steady progress but remains essentially wheelchair bound with hearing and visual defects as well as cognitive dysfunction
The allegations of negligence were that there was a persisting failure to recognise the significance of his symptoms of CSF over-drainage on multiple occasions and had the Claimant had a ventricular-peritoneal shunt at an earlier stage, it is almost certain that he would not have suffered the catastrophic collapse.

Furthermore, there was a negligent delay in diagnosing and therefore treating the Claimant’s underlying genetic CINCA condition that was responsible for the CSF over-drainage in the first place.

The Claim eventually settled just before Trial with the Defendant denying all allegations of negligence throughout.

We acted on the behalf of a client in his clinical negligence claim against the John Radcliffe Hospital following a delay in diagnosis and treatment of compartment syndrome.

The Claimant was a young man and was involved in a motocross accident suffering an isolated injury to his left leg. During his time as an inpatient the Claimant developed an undiagnosed compartment syndrome to his left leg. When eventually diagnosed the neurological damage was irreversible and surgical treatment outcomes likely to be poor. The Claimant was left with a left sided foot drop for which he requires a splint, ongoing left leg pain, an inability to kneel or squat without pain, restricted mobility coupled with weakness in his left ankle. The Claimant was a manual worker and forced to cease work due to his physical injuries.

Pre-action admissions were made by the Defendant as to breach of duty but causation remained in dispute. Proceedings were issued and a Defence was filed again disputing causation. Following service of expert evidence a Joint Settlement Meeting (JSM) took place where the main issues with regards to quantum were the Claimant’s reduced earning capacity and future care and assistance. The case settled at the JSM.