January 2017

Tees secured a £750,000 settlement for a client whose knee replacement surgery was performed negligently.

The incident

Our client [E] underwent total knee replacement (TKR) surgery in March 2011. Unfortunately, a surgical error resulted in his knee and foot becoming misaligned. As a result of the surgery, E could turn his right foot 180 degrees so that it pointed directly behind him.

To correct the malrotation, E went through two painful revision knee replacement operations. He now suffers from chronic pain in his back and leg, and cannot walk long distances. The pain left him unable to work, forcing him to retire from a much-loved career operating military drones.

Seeking legal support

E contacted Tees Law about making a claim against the NHS Trust responsible for his knee surgery. Our expert team of Medical Negligence solicitors took his case on a ‘no win, no fee’ basis.

Building the case

Between 2012 and 2016, our team reviewed E’s medical records, obtained evidence from an expert Orthopaedic Surgeon, and drafted various witness statements from E’s friends and family to support his claim.

The Trust declined to send any statements or expert evidence in return and refused to admit responsibility for E’s injuries until April 2016. Even after admitting responsibility, the Trust continued to dispute the value of the claim.

Settlement achieved

In September 2016, just two weeks before trial, the Trust accepted our settlement offer. The £750,000 settlement will allow E to buy and adapt a bungalow. Due to the chronic pain in his leg, it is difficult for him to climb stairs, and we are confident that the move to a single-storey property will have a very positive impact on his quality of life.

Our specialist financial advisers provided E with independent financial advice to ensure that the substantial settlement will continue to support him.

Reflections on the case

“This was hard-fought and complex litigation in which the Trust accepted responsibility for the damage extremely late,” said the Tees lawyer in charge of the case. “In the end, the defence proved to be without foundation, and I was delighted that E received full compensation for his injuries with the opportunity to come back to court if he requires further surgery, such as an amputation or fusion, in the future.”

Client feedback

“We can’t thank you enough for your efforts in this marathon operation. The meeting went very well with Tees financial adviser, and we want to pursue some of the suggestions proposed, so we are going to be with Tees for some time to come,” said E, following the news that the settlement was accepted.

Free, confidential advice on medical negligence

If you believe you have suffered as a result of medical negligence, contact Tees Law for free, confidential advice. Our experienced solicitors are here to help you understand your options and seek the compensation you deserve.

Background

Sue and James had been married for 23 years and have a 22 year old daughter and a 20 year old son.

For several years prior to instructing solicitors they had not been getting along and been living more and more separate lives under the same roof. They decided to separate and sell their jointly owned house which was too large for either of them with a view to going their separate ways.

Our Solution

Sue also went to see a collaborative lawyer and both were assessed as being suitable to be accepted as collaborative clients. They held a good deal of mutual respect for one another despite no longer wishing to remain together. Neither had an ‘axe to grind’ but they needed clarity and legal guidance and advice due to the complexity of the situation.

Over a series of 6 meetings (4-way meetings), we assisted Sue and James identify their assets and financial circumstances and needs. This included:

An independent company valuation was obtained early on through agreement and an expert jointly appointed

A full report as to pension sharing and how equality of income might be achieved

Looking at monthly budgets and needs

Looking at James’ and Sue’s housing requirements

Outcome

To conclude, a mutually agreed settlement was arrived at which took into account James’ wish to maintain autonomy over the significant company assets without claim from Sue. Sue took a higher amount from the non-company assets (house and savings) to provide her with enough to buy a new home with a fund sufficient to enable the clean-break on income which both wanted.

Sue and James agreed a ‘pension sharing order’ which was based on both having broadly similar income at retirement.

During the process, the ‘reason’ for the divorce was also agreed within the face to face sessions and papers drafted in between sessions. The two collaborative lawyers were also mindful throughout as to the potential need for counselling and this was discussed with Sue and James, who separately agreed this may assist them. By adopting this approach, it assisted them to stay focussed on the issues and facts, rather than the meetings becoming emotionally too charged.

If you want a lawyer to take a closer look at your situation, our family and divorce lawyers are based in: