Medical Negligence Archives

Ovarian cancer and medical negligence: Understanding symptoms, diagnosis, and your legal rights

Posted on 25 February 202514 May 2025 by Sarah O'Sullivan

What is ovarian cancer?

Ovarian cancer is the growth of abnormal cells in the ovaries. The cells can grow into surrounding tissues or organs. There are different types of ovarian cancer, and the type you have depends on the type of cell it starts in.

Symptoms of ovarian cancer

Symptoms of ovarian cancer can often be mistaken for symptoms of other conditions. Common symptoms include:

bloating
pelvic pain
menstrual irregularities
feeling full quickly / loss of appetite
frequent urination.

Other symptoms can include changes in bowel habit, unexplained weight loss and fatigue.

Causes and risk factors

Risk factors can include age (the risk is greatest in those aged 75 and 79), inherited genes, previous cancer (such as a history of breast cancer), being overweight, having a family history of ovarian cancer, using hormone replacement therapy (HRT) and certain conditions such as diabetes or endometriosis.

Diagnosis of ovarian cancer

There are 7,500 new cases of ovarian cancer in the UK every year.

According to Cancer Research UK, one in 56 females in the UK will be diagnosed with ovarian cancer in their lifetime, and 11% of ovarian cancer cases are preventable.

Importance of timely detection

Around 95% of those diagnosed with ovarian cancer at stage 1 (between 2016 and 2020) survive five years or more, compared to just 15% of those surviving five 5 years or more when diagnosed at stage IV. (Early Diagnosis Hub (shinyapps.io))

This means a timely diagnosis of ovarian cancer is crucial – it directly impacts the chances of successful treatment, survival rates and overall prognosis.

Challenges in early diagnosis

Because the symptoms of ovarian cancer are non-specific and can often be mistaken for symptoms of other conditions (such as gastrointestinal issues), ovarian cancer can go undetected for years.

The NICE Guidance on Ovarian Cancer, Recognition and Initial Management aims to enable earlier detection of ovarian cancer and improve initial treatment.

Diagnostic procedures and tests

If a doctor suspects ovarian cancer, they should do a pelvic examination and order blood tests (called a CA125 test). They may also order imaging, such as an ultrasound of the abdomen and pelvis.

If, after these initial tests, the doctor remains concerned about ovarian cancer, they will refer you to a hospital for further investigation using a suspected cancer pathway referral.

Further imaging may be done (for example, a CT scan) and a needle or surgical biopsy may also be taken to confirm (or exclude) the diagnosis, determine the type or assess the staging of the cancer.

Pap smears do not screen or diagnose ovarian cancer. MRI scans are also not routinely used for assessing women with suspected ovarian cancer.

Medical negligence in ovarian cancer cases

Common examples of medical negligence in ovarian cancer cases can include:

Delayed diagnosis. This could occur if:

There is a failure to monitor high-risk patients
Symptoms consistent with ovarian cancer are ignored
Blood tests or scans are not requested when symptoms indicate possible ovarian cancer
Test or scan results are misinterpreted
Test results or abnormal findings are not followed up or communicated

A delayed diagnosis can mean that the disease spreads to other parts of your body, making it more difficult to treat; you require different or more treatment; and/or that your prognosis is poorer.

Surgical errors or mismanagement, such as:

incomplete tumour removal
accidental damage to the bladder, bowel or ureters
wrong procedure

Ovarian cancer misdiagnosis leading to the wrong treatment

This could occur if a patient is incorrectly diagnosed with another condition (e.g. ovarian cysts) and is given the wrong treatment, such as hormonal therapy rather than cancer treatment.

Making a claim for ovarian misdiagnosis

Eligibility for making a claim

Medical negligence occurs when a patient suffers harm or injury as a result of substandard care in a healthcare setting.

Medical negligence claims have strict time limits. If your case relates to a delayed diagnosis or ovarian cancer misdiagnosis, this is 3 three years from when you were informed of the correct diagnosis. If your case relates to errors relating to treatment, this is likely to be 3 three years from the date of the error.

Steps involved in the claims process

Medical negligence claims are technical and complex – that is why you should seek advice from a specialist medical negligence lawyer. It will be almost impossible to navigate the process on your own.

If you would like to understand more, read here: “Bringing a medical negligence claim”

Compensation

Claiming compensation can help provide the help and support that you need.

The amount of compensation you can obtain can vary widely depending on the specific circumstances of your case.

As well as receiving compensation for the physical and psychological consequences of any negligence, you will be able to recover specific financial losses incurred as a result of the negligence. This could include loss of earnings, care, medical treatment and other miscellaneous costs resulting from the negligence.

Seeking support for a medical negligence claim is a significant and often challenging step. That is why we are here to listen to you and talk through what happened, and to help and guide you every step of the way.

The link between Covid-19 and Sepsis

Posted on 22 January 202514 May 2025 by Sarah O'Sullivan

It is well known that Covid-19 can severely compromise the respiratory system, with many people going on to develop pneumonia to a greater or lesser extent – although all other organ systems are at risk of damage from the disease.

A recent study has now confirmed that nearly a third of UK Coronavirus patients were readmitted to hospital within 140 days due to the patient developing sepsis. Some patients will go on to die from sepsis and its complications. It is therefore vital to know and recognise the early signs of sepsis and ensure treatment is prompt when diagnosed and avoid the need to seek legal advice.

Janine Collier, Partner and Head of Tees’ Medical Negligence team, comments: “Like many illnesses, this study suggests that Covid-19 carries a risk of adverse events particularly for those who recently survived severe Coronavirus . The key thing is for patients to be aware of this risk and watch for signs of any “new” conditions which may be indicate of, for example diabetes; kidney, liver or cardiovascular disease (e.g high blood pressure, heart attack or stroke); or a new infection or sepsis. Early intervention and treatment can help to manage these conditions and to avoid progression to more severe and serious illness such as sepsis, stroke and heart attack. Patients should seek medical help if they have any concerns at all – don’t wait.”

If you or a loved one has suffered from sepsis and you are worried about standards of care, we can help. Our specialist sepsis negligence claims solicitors understand what you’re going through, and we can help you get answers about your care. We’ll listen to your experiences, and help you find out what happened throughout your treatment.

Sepsis must be diagnosed and treated quickly. Any delay or problems with treatment could have serious implications – so doctors should recognise the warning signs of sepsis and offer the right treatment. Professional guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of sepsis are very clear, but mistakes during treatment can and do happen. Unfortunately, medical errors can have serious and devastating consequences for patients and their families. Sepsis negligence claims normally focus on either a:

Delayed diagnosis of sepsis – you might have a claim if your doctor didn’t spot the signs of sepsis early enough and this made your condition worse
Misdiagnosis of sepsis – you might have a claim if your doctor misinterpreted your symptoms, and this caused a delay in your treatment which made your condition worse.

Read on to learn more about the signs of sepsis in children and adults, including common symptoms and causes which may result from medical negligence.

What is sepsis?

Sepsis is a potentially fatal abnormal immune response to an infection. It can cause:

Organ failure
Tissue damage (which can lead to amputation)
Death.

Can sepsis be treated and cured?

Sepsis can progress very quickly and requires immediate medical treatment. If diagnosed promptly it can be treated with antibiotics.

Your immune system normally keeps you safe from infections. In cases of sepsis, the immune system is overwhelmed and begins to attack the body. Sepsis can cause inflammation and septic shock (dangerously low blood pressure). Inflammation can cause damage throughout your body – including damage to your organs, soft tissue and limbs.

Tragically, 5 people die as a result of sepsis every hour in the UK. One in four of all sepsis survivors suffer permanent, life-changing effects (such as the loss of a limb). So, it’s important to be familiar with the common causes and signs of sepsis – it could help save your life.

Is sepsis the same as blood poisoning?

Sepsis is sometimes referred to as ‘blood poisoning’. However, sepsis and blood poisoning are different medical conditions. Blood poisoning is when bacteria infect your bloodstream, sepsis is when your immune system overreacts to an infection.

What is the most common cause of sepsis?

Sepsis is caused by an abnormal response to any kind of infection. Common causes of infections which can trigger sepsis include:

Viral illness – such as a fever, cough or cold
Bacterial infection – this could set in after a physical injury or surgery
Fungal infection – such as a urinary tract infection (UTI).

Anyone can get sepsis, but it’s more common in young children, the elderly or people who have an existing problem with their immune system (‘immunocompromised’). People receiving anticancer treatments may be at risk of developing sepsis (‘neutropenic sepsis’) if they suffer an infection during their treatment, because of their weakened immune system.

What are the first signs of sepsis?

Identifying sepsis at an early stage, and getting the right medical treatment, can help prevent it from becoming life-threatening. Every case of sepsis is different, but there are some common symptoms to look out for.

Early signs of sepsis in children

Children and babies may be at particular risk of sepsis if they have a fever (or have had one in the last 24 hours), or have a very low (less than 36C) or very high temperature.

Symptoms of sepsis in children include:

breathing very fast and/or a very fast heartbeat
fits or convulsions
mottled, bluish or pale skin
a rash which does not fade when pressed
very low energy or difficult to wake
lack of interest in anything
feeling abnormally cold to the touch.

Symptoms of sepsis in children under five years include:

not interested in feeding
has not wanted a drink for 8 hours or more
difficulty breathing – may make ‘grunting’ noises
is floppy
vomiting repeatedly
hasn’t had a wee/wet nappy for 12 hours.

If your child is poorly, and has a fever (or has had one in the last 24 hours) or low temperature, The Sepsis Trust UK advises parents to call 999 and ask: could it be sepsis?

Symptoms of sepsis in the elderly

Symptoms of sepsis in adults and the elderly include:

slurred speech
confusion
severe shivering or muscle pain
passing no urine for a day
severe breathlessness
feeling like you’re going to die
fast heartbeat and/or fast breathing
an abnormally high or low temperature
mottled or discoloured skin.

Having just one, or more, of these symptoms could be a sign of sepsis. The NHS has published a useful list of symptoms of sepsis in babies, children, adults and the elderly.

What are the early signs of septic shock?

Septic shock is a particularly severe form of sepsis which causes dangerously low blood pressure. Symptoms of septic shock include:

feeling dizzy, nauseous or faint
losing consciousness (fainting)
diarrhoea
vomiting
cold, clammy or mottled skin.

NHS Trust death: Inquest into St Albans woman’s empty oxygen cylinder

Posted on 21 January 202514 May 2025 by Sarah O'Sullivan

An inquest into the death of a woman under the care of West Hertfordshire Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust began on Monday 20 January.

Incident overview

Cecilia Harper (71) died in Watford General Hospital on 9 February 2022, while being transported from her ward to the radiology department. She had been admitted to the hospital five days earlier.

Circumstances leading to her Death

The mother-of-two had reported breathlessness while in hospital, after initially being provided with oxygen via nasal cannula, her oxygen dependency increased and Cecilia was provided with an non-rebreather oxygen mask for the journey and was accompanied by a porter and student nurse. She was conscious when she left the ward, yet by the time she arrived in the ultrasound room she had lost consciousness. A number of medical staff undertook CPR but Cecilia had sadly died.

Investigation findings

Upon investigation, it was discovered that Cecilia’s oxygen cylinder was empty, it was not clear when this occurred. During the first day of the inquest, it was heard that research carried out by a doctor at the Trust indicated that 10% of patients transferred to the A&E CT department have insufficient oxygen for a return journey, while 9% of patients made the journey with oxygen cylinders switched off.

However, a post-mortem report, which identified metastatic breast carcinoma as the cause of death, made no mention of the impact of the empty oxygen cylinder or oxygen dependency.

The inquest proceedings

An inquest took place at the Coroner’s Office for the Area of Hertfordshire to determine the cause of Cecilia’s death. There have been two previous inquest review hearings to ensure all appropriate evidence has been sought, which has delayed proceedings.

The inquest, which was expected to take place over three days, concluded on Tuesday (21 January). The inquest sought to confirm the exact circumstances surrounding Cecilia’s death.

The coroner determined that Mrs Harper died from natural causes, but it is unclear whether there was any problem with oxygen supply, and it is unclear if there was a problem with oxygen supply, if it contributed to her death.

There was not a determinative finding because of the contradictory evidence and lack of documentary evidence relating to the timings of when things occurred.

Concerns raised by Tees Law

Tees Law, acting for Cecilia’s family, has highlighted possible breaches in regulations by West Hertfordshire Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust.

Hospital staff have reported different times for the length of Cecilia’s journey from her ward to the ultrasound room, however it is understood to have taken at least six minutes. Moreover, it is believed to be contrary to best practice for a porter and a trainee nurse to accompany a patient in the way Cecilia was transported. Instead, she should have been accompanied by appropriately trained professionals.

Statement from Tees Law

Sophie Stuart of Tees, acting for the family, said: “These tragic events pose many questions about the use of oxygen cylinders for patients within West Hertfordshire Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust.

Cecilia’s family is hoping that the inquest will help shine a light on what happened to Cecilia. By highlighting any failings in her care, the family hope that the Trust will address a wider problem in order to ensure this never happens to any other patient.

It is also worth noting that NHS England issued Patient Safety Alerts in relation to oxygen cylinders in 2018 and 2023. Our concern is that despite these alerts this issue still seems to be a problem and could be affecting other patients.”

Remembering Cecilia Harper

Living in St Albans at the time of her death in her early 70s, Cecilia had many jobs throughout her life. Notably, she worked in Hong Kong, managing American expatriates in South-East Asia for the global technology firm IBM. She returned to the UK in 1983, where she lived ever since with her husband John.

Placental abruption signs: Medical negligence claims

Posted on 4 January 202514 May 2025 by Sarah O'Sullivan

Understanding placental abruption: Causes, symptoms, and medical negligence claims. The placenta is the baby’s lifeline in the womb, supplying oxygen and nutrients for proper development. A placental abruption is a serious condition that can pose a significant threat to both mother and baby. In rare cases, it can lead to severe injury or even stillbirth.

If you have experienced complications related to placental abruption and believe medical negligence played a role, you may be entitled to pursue a legal claim.

What is Placental Abruption?

Placental abruption occurs when the placenta partially or completely detaches from the uterine wall before delivery. This can reduce or cut off the baby’s oxygen supply, causing serious health risks. While it is a rare complication, occurring in less than 1% of pregnancies, its consequences can be severe.

Causes and Risk Factors

Although the exact cause of placental abruption is often unknown, several factors can increase the risk:

Previous placental abruption
Abdominal trauma (e.g., car accidents, falls)
Carrying twins, triplets, or more
Pre-eclampsia (high blood pressure during pregnancy)
Uterine infections
Chronic hypertension
Drug use (cocaine or amphetamines)
Smoking

Even without these risk factors, placental abruption can still occur. Pregnant women with concerns should consult their healthcare provider for personalized advice.

Signs and Symptoms of Placental Abruption

The most common signs of placental abruption include:

Vaginal bleeding
Abdominal or back pain
Uterine tenderness
Frequent, painful contractions

In some cases, bleeding may be concealed, meaning blood remains trapped between the placenta and uterine wall. This type of abruption may present with severe pain but no visible bleeding.

Diagnosis and Treatment

Prompt diagnosis and intervention are crucial to ensure the safety of both mother and baby. Medical professionals typically perform:

Physical examinations
Ultrasounds
Fetal monitoring

Treatment options depend on the severity of the abruption and the stage of pregnancy. In severe cases, an emergency cesarean section may be necessary to prevent further complications.

Medical Negligence and Placental Abruption Claims

While most cases are managed effectively, medical negligence can occur if healthcare providers fail to diagnose or treat placental abruption appropriately. Examples of negligence may include:

Delayed diagnosis
Inadequate fetal monitoring
Failure to perform a timely cesarean section
Mismanagement of maternal bleeding

If you suspect medical negligence, you have the right to seek legal advice. At Tees, our experienced medical negligence solicitors can investigate your case and help you obtain the answers you deserve.

How We Can Help

Free Consultation: Discuss your experience with a qualified solicitor.
Expert Investigation: We collaborate with medical experts to assess your care.
Support and Guidance: Our compassionate team supports you every step of the way.

Contact Tees today to explore your options for a medical negligence claim.

Disclaimer: This content is for informational purposes only and should not replace professional medical or legal advice. Consult your healthcare provider for medical concerns and a qualified solicitor for legal inquiries.

Expert help for your medical negligence claim

Posted on 19 December 202414 May 2025 by Sarah O'Sullivan

If you’ve been harmed by a healthcare provider, you may be considering whether you have a medical negligence (or clinical negligence) claim. The process can seem complicated, but we’re here to guide you through it every step of the way.

What is Medical Negligence?

Medical negligence happens when a healthcare professional (such as a doctor, nurse, or hospital) provides care that falls below the expected standard, and this causes harm to you. To pursue a claim, we need to prove two main things:

1. Breach of Duty of Care

This means proving that the healthcare provider didn’t meet the proper standard of care. For example, a doctor may have failed to diagnose a condition, or a hospital may have made a mistake during surgery. If it can be shown that most other healthcare professionals in the same situation would have acted differently, then this can be considered a breach.

2. Causation

Not only do we need to show that the healthcare provider was negligent, but we also need to prove that their mistake directly caused your injury. This requires strong evidence, often in the form of an independent medical opinion, to link the negligence with the harm you’ve experienced.

Time limits for filing a claim

Claims for medical negligence generally need to be made within three years of the incident happening or when you first became aware that the injury may have been caused by negligence. This is called the “date of knowledge.”

However, there are exceptions:

Children: Claims can be made on their behalf at any time until three years after their 18th birthday.
Mental Capacity: If the person affected doesn’t have mental capacity, the time limit can be extended.

What is the process for a medical negligence claim?

Once you reach out to us, we’ll start by gathering all the relevant details and medical records about your case. This helps us determine whether there’s a valid claim. We will also work with independent medical experts to review the situation and give advice on whether there was a breach of care and if your injuries were caused by it.

After this, we’ll send a formal letter of claim to the healthcare provider, outlining the issues. They then have four months to investigate and respond, either admitting or denying responsibility. If they deny it, we will continue to build the case for you.

How is a medical negligence claim valued?

We calculate the amount of compensation based on two key areas:

1. General Damages

These cover pain, suffering, and the loss of your ability to enjoy life. The amount varies depending on the severity of your injury, but we use established guidelines and case law to estimate what’s fair.

2. Special Damages

These cover your financial losses, such as:

Loss of future income
Cost of any care or assistance you need
Medical expenses
Travel costs related to treatment
Costs for private treatment, if necessary

3. Future Losses

These are any ongoing costs or income loss that you might face due to the injury, such as:

Ongoing medical treatment
Future lost earnings

How we can help you

At Tees Law, our team of legal experts are here to help you through the process of bringing a medical negligence claim. We understand how stressful it can be, and we’re committed to supporting you every step of the way.

Delayed cervical cancer diagnosis: Medical negligence insights

Posted on 16 December 202414 May 2025 by Sarah O'Sullivan

A crucial discussion for Cervical Cancer Prevention Week 2025

Cervical cancer remains a significant health concern for women worldwide, and early diagnosis and treatment are vital. Delays in diagnosis can severely impact a patient’s prognosis, leading to more extensive treatment and, tragically, increased mortality rates.

Understanding cervical cancer

Cervical cancer is a significant public health concern in the United Kingdom. Here are some key statistics regarding cervical cancer cases in the UK:

Incidence rates: Most cases of cervical cancer are diagnosed in women aged 30-45, although it can occur at any age after the onset of sexual activity.
HPV: The primary cause of cervical cancer is a virus called high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV). High-risk HPV can cause changes in the cells of the cervix which, over time, can develop into cervical cancer.
Screening programme: The UK has a national cervical screening programme that invites women from ages 25 to 64 for regular screening. This has been effective in early detection and has reduced the incidence rates.
Vaccination impact: The introduction of the HPV vaccine has also played a role in reducing the number of cervical cancer cases, particularly among younger women who are vaccinated.
Annual cases: As of the most recent data, there were around 3,200 new cervical cancer cases in the UK every year, which is about nine cases diagnosed every day.
Survival rates: Survival rates for cervical cancer have increased over the past few decades due to better screening and treatment options. The five-year survival rate for women diagnosed with early-stage cervical cancer is relatively high.
Regional variation: There might be regional variations in incidence and mortality rates within the UK, with some areas having higher rates than others, often linked to socioeconomic factors and access to screening services.

Please note that these statistics can change over time, and for the most current data, you should refer to recent reports from sources like Cancer Research UK, the Office for National Statistics, or the NHS.

HPV

HPV is a common virus which most people (eight out of 10) get infected with at some point. In most people, it will go away within two years without causing any problems. There are many types of HPV and cervical cancer is linked to infection with high-risk types of HPV which do not go away on their own.

HPV does not cause any symptoms so cervical screening tests in England, Scotland and Wales look for high-risk HPV first and, if a screening sample is positive for high-risk HPV, a patient is invited back for cervical screening in one year (rather than in three years). If a patient has high-risk HPV three times in a row, they will be invited to colposcopy for more tests. If a patient has high-risk HPV plus cell changes, they will be invited to colposcopy for further tests.

A colposcopy is an examination normally done in a hospital or local clinic where a closer look is taken at the cervix and a biopsy may be taken. Depending on the results, treatment may be offered to remove the abnormal cells before they become cancerous or, if there is cancer present, further treatment will be offered, which depends on how large the cancer is and whether it has spread to anywhere else in the body.

Symptoms of cervical cancer

Symptoms can include:

Abnormal vaginal bleeding
Pelvic pain
Pain during intercourse
Unusual vaginal discharge

In the later stages of cervical cancer, symptoms can also include:

Unexplained pain in the lower back or pelvis
Unexplained weight loss

If women present with these symptoms, they should contact their GP. The symptoms may or may not be due to cervical cancer, but seeing a GP can ensure that they are thoroughly investigated.

However, for some women, cervical cancer does not cause any obvious symptoms which is why women need to attend their cervical screening tests (previously known as smear tests) when they are offered.

Importance of timely diagnosis

Diagnosis of cervical cancer can include investigations such as:

Cervical screening tests
Colposcopies
Biopsy
Scans
Hysteroscopy (looking inside the womb with a narrow telescope and camera)

Treatment options range from surgery to chemotherapy, depending on the stage of the cancer when diagnosed. Radiotherapy and brachytherapy are other treatments that can be offered.

Early detection is key to increasing survival rates and limiting the extent of treatment that a woman may need. A delayed diagnosis can allow the cancer to progress, leading to the need for more aggressive treatment and worse outcomes (such as a lower chance of recovery or increased risk of the cancer coming back).

Examples of negligence in diagnosis and treatment of cervical cancer

Failure to offer cervical screening tests
Failure to refer a patient to a hospital specialist for further investigations
Misinterpretation of cervical screening results
Misreporting of colposcopy results

For instance, a GP may neglect to invite a patient for cervical screening when it is due.

Alternatively, where a patient presents with symptoms such as abnormal vaginal bleeding (e.g. between periods or after the menopause), a GP may fail to make an appropriate referral for further investigation.

There are also cases where abnormal cervical screening test results are incorrectly reported as being normal, or colposcopy results are misreported as normal, thereby delaying the diagnosis of cervical cancer.

Proving medical negligence

All healthcare providers owe a duty of care to their patients. To establish a medical negligence claim, it needs to be shown that the healthcare provider breached their duty of care towards their patient (failed to provide an acceptable standard of care) and that the patient has suffered harm because of negligence (this is known as causation).

The harm suffered by a patient may be physical and/or psychiatric harm, and financial losses suffered because of the negligence are also recoverable as part of a medical negligence claim in addition to a sum of compensation for avoidable pain and suffering. It may also be possible to recover compensation for future financial losses that will be incurred as a result of the negligence (such as future medical treatment costs).

Cervical cancer prevention week 2025: Awareness

In 2023, Jo’s Trust launched its End Cervical Cancer campaign. NHS England has pledged to eliminate cervical cancer by 2040, but to make this happen, programmes for HPV vaccinations, cervical screening and treatment for cell changes need to be as effective and easy to access as possible.

We also consider that it is imperative to address the issue of delayed cervical cancer diagnosis due to negligence to bring about system improvements, professional training, and patient awareness.

The upcoming Cervical Cancer Prevention Week 2025 is an opportunity to unite in the fight against cervical cancer.

How Tees can help

Tees offers ‘no win, no fee’ agreements for the investigation of medical negligence claims – this means that no costs associated with a claim are payable unless a claim is successful. . If you win, most of your legal costs are paid by the Defendant. A small portion of your compensation may be used to cover legal costs not paid by the Defendant. The majority of our clients choose this option for peace of mind and affordability.

Our specialist lawyers are happy to give initial advice on a potential claim, advising you as to whether a claim is likely to succeed.

A number of our lawyers, including Natalie Pibworth, who is a senior solicitor in the medical negligence department at Tees, have experience in dealing with claims involving delayed diagnosis of cervical cancer and understand the sensitivity required when helping with such claims.

Our specialist lawyers are ready to assist you if you want further information or to discuss a potential claim.

Please note that the content of this article is for information purposes only and should not replace professional medical advice.

Baby loss awareness week: The heartbreak of Lisa and Ryan

Posted on 4 October 202414 May 2025 by Sarah O'Sullivan

Lisa Buttery (36) and fiancé Ryan Barnes (37) had always wanted to start a family, but despite years of trying, they had never been able to conceive. In November 2021, they eventually found out they were pregnant with baby Isla Grace and were overjoyed to finally become parents.

This would be their first child. They put their wedding planning on hold while they prepared for their new arrival.

“Our little miracle”

The pregnancy went smoothly, and baby Isla was growing well. Lisa was referred to the John Radcliffe Hospital in Oxford, where a plan was made for induction of labour at 42 weeks.

Following induction, Lisa’s labour progressed quickly, but baby Isla soon began to struggle. Concerns were first raised by midwives shortly after Lisa’s waters broke, as CTG’s (fetal monitoring equipment) suggested that Isla Grace was getting a limited supply of oxygen during labour. A plan was made to transfer Lisa to the delivery suite, but no beds were available at the time.

In the hours that followed, further concerns were raised by midwives, who felt that Isla’s heart rate was fluctuating dangerously. On three separate occasions, recommendations by the midwives to escalate Lisa to an emergency caesarean section were overruled. Eventually, Lisa was taken for a category two emergency caesarean section. A category two caesarean section is initiated where there is fetal or maternal compromise which is not considered life-threatening. Despite attempts at resuscitation, Isla tragically died at just 19 minutes old.

A coroner’s inquest took place in March 2023, which concluded that Isla died from hypoxic brain damage, signs of which were seen on electronic foetal monitoring (CTG recording).

The process

Lisa and Ryan approached Tees to help guide them through the inquest process and to bring a claim for compensation on behalf of Isla Grace.

Following initial investigations, Tees were able to secure a response from the hospital, who admitted that they failed to refer Lisa for an emergency caesarean section once concerns were raised around Isla’s wellbeing. They admit that, had Lisa been sent for an earlier caesarean section, then Isla would likely have survived.

A word from Lisa and Ryan

“Losing our beautiful daughter Isla Grace has forever changed us as people – it is a story we never thought imaginable, let alone something we will now have to live with for the rest of our lives. And that is exactly what it is – a life-long heart break knowing you will never feel true joy again without our first and only child in this world.

We contacted Tees to find answers and justice for Isla as both internal and external investigations didn’t reveal an underlying cause of death. We see that the only benefit that can come from this is change – change to processes, change to assumptions, change to maternity care that we hope will save the lives of thousands of babies – and our hope is that that will be Isla Grace’s legacy.”

Thank you to Lisa and Ryan for giving Tees permission to share their story on Baby Loss Awareness Week, in memory of Isla Grace.

If you are concerned about the care you or your baby received, you can talk to one of our specialists. We’ll listen to your experience and help you get to the truth of what happened.

Delayed retinal detachment diagnosis after cataract surgery leads to vision loss

Posted on 23 September 202414 May 2025 by Sophie Soraf

The case concerns Mr Stephen Hutchinson aged 66 from Wisbech, a patient who underwent cataract surgery at Anglia Community Eye Service (ACES) in Wisbech in 2019.

Unfortunately, the procedure did not go as planned and complications arose during surgery. Mr Hutchinson was not told about these complications and post-operatively he reported concerns about his vision. Mr Hutchinson also complained of delays in appropriate triage, assessment and treatment, which ultimately resulted in a total loss of vision in the right eye from a retinal detachment.

The Initial Procedure: Cataract Surgery

On 14 October 2019, Mr Hutchinson underwent cataract surgery at ACES. During the surgery, a small tear occurred in Mr Hutchinson’s posterior capsule, which was documented in the operation notes but not communicated to Mr Hutchinson at the time or upon discharge.

The tear in the posterior capsule was a complication that required careful post-operative monitoring and prompt medical intervention if symptoms of retinal detachment developed. However, Mr Hutchinson was not informed about this and was discharged from ACES clinic without any specific advice or safety netting being provided.

Post-Operative Complications and Clinical Negligence

Following the surgery, Mr Hutchinson started to experience blurry vision. He made multiple calls to ACES expressing concerns between 16 and 24 October. Whilst blurry vision can be a common symptom following cataract surgery, given the complication during Mr Hutchinson’s surgery, any changes in vision warranted further clinical review.

However, reassuring responses from ACES made without the benefit of a thorough eye examination delayed the necessary medical intervention and staff failed to escalate Mr Hutchinson’s concerns to the operating surgeon.

Mr Hutchinson had to insist on being seen by the operating surgeon, on 25 October. During this first post-operative review, it was noted in Mr Hutchinson’s medical records that his vision had not cleared and was in fact getting worse. Mr Hutchinson was seen again by the operating surgeon the following day and whilst the medical records documented that a retinal detachment was suspected, Mr Hutchinson was not informed. Instead, he was asked to return for a further appointment two days later.

Mr Hutchinson duly returned on 28 October for a washout of the eye. Once again, he was asked to return two days later. Mr Hutchinson returned to be assessed again by the operating surgeon for the fourth time on 30 October and on this occasion a referral was finally made to Addenbrooke’s Hospital for specialist vitreoretinal review and treatment.

Mr Hutchinson was seen by Addenbrooke’s Hospital on 31 October and was booked for emergency surgery the same day to try to save his sight. Whilst Addenbrooke’s was able to reattach Mr Hutchinson’s retina, his sight could not be saved due to the delays in referral.

Retinal Detachment: A Serious Medical Condition

Retinal detachment is a serious sight-threatening medical condition that requires urgent intervention to prevent permanent vision loss. In Mr Hutchinson’s case, the symptoms of retinal detachment were present and reported to ACES in the days following his surgery. However, these symptoms were not acted upon in a timely manner.

Between 16 and 24 October 2019, Mr Hutchinson made five telephone calls to ACES and attended an appointment, expressing concerns about his deteriorating vision. Reassurances were given, and opportunities for urgent review and intervention were missed. By the time the retinal detachment was suspected, and a referral was made for further management on 30 October, significant damage had already occurred to Mr Hutchinson’s retina, resulting in substantial loss of vision.

Complaints Process

Prior to seeking legal advice, Mr Hutchinson made a formal complaint to ACES raising his concerns about the complications that arose during his surgery, the fact that he wasn’t told that his surgery was complicated and thereafter the issues with his post-operative care.

In response to Mr Hutchinson’s complaint, ACES advised that, with the benefit of hindsight, his care and outcome may have been better had he been seen by the operating surgeon sooner and that there should have been a full explanation of what happened during surgery.

However, the complaint did not acknowledge that any of Mr Hutchinson’s care fell below a reasonable standard and Mr Hutchinson felt that no lessons had been learned from his experience. He therefore proceeded to make a complaint about ACES to the local Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG).

The Importance of Serious Incident Reports for Patient Safety

Following Mr Hutchinson’s complaint to the CCG, the group contacted ACES asking them to raise his case as a Serious Incident under the NHS Serious Incident Framework. Serious Incidents are events in healthcare where the potential for learning is so significant that they warrant using additional resources to mount a comprehensive investigation.

Despite several requests from the CCG, ACES declined to conduct an investigation. The refusal by ACES to report the case as a Serious Incident meant that a comprehensive investigation into the failings in Mr Hutchinson’s care was not initiated. Therefore, opportunities for learning and improving patient safety were missed.

At the time, ACES told CCG that the Serious Incident process required both sides to agree that an incident met the threshold. Since ACES decided that Mr Hutchinson’s case did not constitute a Serious Incident, they argued that it therefore did not warrant an investigation. Internal CCG emails disclosed under a subject access request (SAR) for Mr Hutchinson noted that the refusal by ACES to declare a Serious Incident was not a surprise and indicated a pattern of failing to investigate and learn from adverse patient outcomes.

Mr Hutchinson’s case highlighted a potential loophole in the NHS Serious Incident Framework, where one care provider can disagree with the classification of an incident as a Serious Incident, preventing a thorough investigation from taking place and therefore preventing lessons from being learned and preventing harm to future patients.

At the conclusion of the legal claim, Mr Hutchinson received a letter of apology from ACES stating that there has now been a complete overhaul of the triage process, meaning that if a patient telephoned post-operatively with any concerns, the triage form is now reviewed by a member of the senior clinical team. ACES also advised that since investigations have taken place, there is now different management and shareholders of ACES, meaning that processes have been reviewed and changed to minimise risk.

Mr Hutchinson was assured by ACES at the conclusion of his claim that they would promptly retrospectively notify the CQC of the Serious Incident. Mr Hutchinson has subsequently learned that such a notification was not made until May 2024, some four and a half years after he lost his sight and as a result, he remains concerned that patient safety lessons have not been acted upon in a timely manner.

Legal Proceedings and the Role of Specialist Clinical Negligence Lawyers

The complex medical and legal issues in Mr Hutchinson’s case highlight the importance of engaging specialist clinical negligence lawyers who have the necessary expertise to thoroughly investigate claims and can ensure that all necessary medical expert evidence is gathered, and appropriate legal arguments are put forward.

In Mr Hutchinson’s case, Tees were able to secure admissions of liability from ACES for the failings in care, specifically that:

There was a failure to advise Mr Hutchinson of the complicated surgery and provide appropriate safety netting advice.
There was a failure to put in place appropriate care and diligence following surgery, including regular follow-up every 1-3 days for up to six weeks after surgery to actively exclude a retinal detachment and/or tear.
Mr Hutchinson should have been seen by a clinician when he first called on 16 October 2019.
That if Mr Hutchinson had been reviewed on 16 October, he would have been investigated and should have been referred to the vitreoretinal specialists at Addenbrooke’s with suspected retinal detachment.
That on 25 and 26 October the operating surgeon failed to refer Mr Hutchinson to the vitreoretinal specialists at Addenbrooke’s with suspected retinal detachment.
It was admitted that with earlier diagnosis and treatment of his retinal detachment Mr Hutchinson would have retained his vision.

Mr Hutchinson was unable to get these answers through the complaints process and sadly learnt through his clinical negligence claim with Tees that his sight loss was entirely avoidable and arose as a result of many instances of negligence by ACES.

In this case, Mr Hutchinson was awarded damages in excess of six figures at mediation, reflecting the significant impact the retinal detachment and the subsequent loss of vision had on his life. While no amount of money can truly compensate for such a loss, this award goes some way to acknowledging the harm suffered and the failures in care provided by ACES, as well as compensating Mr Hutchinson for the financial losses that he suffered and will, in the future suffer, as a result of his sight loss. This case serves as a stark reminder of the potential consequences of clinical negligence and the critical importance of transparency, timely intervention, and thorough investigation by medical negligence lawyers in healthcare.

Conclusion

The case of Mr Hutchinson highlights the complexities of navigating the complaints procedure following a clinical negligence incident in order for a patient to try to obtain answers as to what happened to them and seek assurances that lessons have been learned to prevent future avoidable instances of patient harm.

Mr Hutchinson engaged specialist clinical negligence lawyers at Tees who were able to conduct a thorough investigation and secure admissions of liability.

Mr Hutchinson’s case also brought to light potential issues with the NHS Serious Incident Framework where a care provider was able to avoid carrying out important Serious Incident investigations and the CCG were unable to compel them to do so, highlighting potential failures with patient safety and preventing future incidents of clinical negligence.

Surgeon Yaser Jabbar: Patient ‘G’s case of Medical Negligence

Posted on 16 September 202414 May 2025 by Sarah O'Sullivan

This is the story of Patient ‘G’, a teenager whose life has been severely impacted by the substandard care and questionable practices of surgeon Mr Yaser Jabbar, who worked at the renowned Great Ormond Street Hospital (GOSH) in London.

The harrowing experience of Patient ‘G’ sheds light on the systemic failures that allowed such negligent care to persist, and the fight for justice and accountability.

Yaser Jabbar’s troubled tenure at GOSH

Mr Yaser Jabbar, a 43-year-old surgeon, joined the orthopaedic department at GOSH in June 2017, quickly making a name for himself as a specialist in complex leg-straightening and lengthening procedures. Dubbed the “frame guy” by his colleagues, Jabbar became known for his work with children suffering from congenital limb deformities.

However, beneath the surface, concerns about Mr Jabbar’s practice began to emerge. Colleagues raised concerns about his “cavalier” approach to unexpected complications and his tendency to dismiss or even hide these issues, raising serious questions about patient safety under his care.

The troubling case of Patient ‘G’

Patient ‘G’ was born with VACTERL association, a genetic condition that affects the formation of the bones and organs in utero. He suffers from a radial club hand deformity with thumb hypoplasia, which affects the bones of his hand, radius and ulna. They were referred to GOSH in February 2017 at the age of nine, to explore surgical options to straighten and lengthen his left arm and wrist, with the hopes of improving the cosmetic appearance.

‘G’ was initially seen by Mr Jabbar in January 2020 and later again in February 2020 and April 2021. Unfortunately, these appointments were marked by a lack of detailed medical history-taking or clear communication about the proposed surgical plan and its risks and benefits.

The flawed surgery

In June 2021, ‘G’ underwent surgery to his left arm – but what was performed was vastly different from what had originally been planned. Instead of the agreed-upon procedure to “straighten and lengthen” the left forearm with an Ilizarov frame, Mr Jabbar performed a “length neutral (or even shortening) correction with a plate, and joint distraction. This approach was later deemed “unacceptable” following an investigation by the Royal College of Surgeons (RCS) into Mr Jabbar’s practice.

The RCS report criticised Mr Jabbar’s surgical technique, noting significant under-correction of the radial inclination and the lack of a clear plan for follow-up procedures. His choices were considered highly questionable.

Complications and consequences

Following the surgery, ‘G’ faced a series of complications, including persistent pain, nerve issues and worsening deformity. ‘G’ also developed a post-operative infection, which required removal of the metal pins in his arm. These problems required multiple additional surgeries and extended treatment, including bone grafting.

The RCS investigation concluded that ‘G’ had suffered “moderate harm” due to Mr Jabbar’s actions, with the possibility of further deterioration and the need for more corrective procedures in the future. The findings also noted that Mr Jabbar failed to properly inform ‘G’ and their family about the significant changes made to the surgical plan – raising further concerns about professionalism, transparency and patient care.

The devastating impact

The consequences of Mr Jabbar’s actions have been far-reaching and deeply damaging for Patient ‘G’. Their left arm, which had previously undergone successful surgical correction at a young age, was now in a worse condition, with increased deformity, reduced function, and ongoing pain. Three years on, ‘G’ is still awaiting treatment to rectify the damage caused by Mr Jabbar. The experiences have taken a significant toll on their physical and emotional wellbeing.

Wider systemic failures at GOSH

Unfortunately, this case is not an isolated incident, but part of a larger pattern of systemic issues within GOSH’s orthopaedic department. The RCS investigation revealed a “dysfunctional” team environment, marked by poor communication, a lack of collaboration, and hostility towards staff members who raised concerns. The report also highlighted failures in the hospital’s leadership which ignored or downplayed warnings from staff, allowing Mr Jabbar’s harmful practices to go unchecked for years, ultimately leading to the harm of hundreds of young and vulnerable patients.

The aftermath and ongoing legal battle

In the wake of the RCS investigation, GOSH has launched a comprehensive review of the cases of 721 children treated by Mr Jabbar, with the hospital acknowledging the “serious concerns” raised and apologising to the affected families.

Georgina Wade, Solicitor at Tees is representing ‘G’ and his family in the pursuit of justice for the harm caused by Mr Jabbar’s negligence. Georgina is also representing a number of other families who have been affected.

The case of Patient ‘G’ and the broader issues at GOSH highlight the critical need for accountability and transparency within the medical profession. When there is a breakdown of trust, and patient safety is compromised, the consequences can be devastating – not only for the individuals and families directly affected, but also for the public’s confidence in the healthcare system.

The call for accountability and reform

This case is one of several cases which serves as a call to action – healthcare providers must prioritise patient safety, foster a culture of openness, and swiftly address shortfalls in care when they occur. Only by committing to these values, can we protect vulnerable patients like ‘G’ and begin to rebuild and restore trust in the medical profession.

Statement from solicitor Georgina Wade

Solicitor Georgina Wade said: “As the family’s solicitor I am deeply troubled by the findings of the Royal College of Surgeons into the care provided to ‘G’ by Mr Jabbar. Both ‘G’ and his family trusted him; he was someone they believed to be a respected and experienced surgeon at one of the world’s leading children’s hospitals. He abused that trust and used his position of authority to perform a totally different surgical procedure to the one which was agreed to by ‘G’ and his family.

“Beyond Mr Jabbar’s worrying practices, the fact that he was allowed to continue treating children after concerns were raised about his practice also raises questions about the conduct of Great Ormond Street. As the extent of Mr Jabbar’s worrying practices now comes to light, I am shocked to see how many vulnerable children have been affected by his behaviour. One child coming to harm is one too many. ‘G’ and his family, along with all those affected by this deserve answers and accountability, as they will have to live with the consequences of the actions of both GOSH and Mr Jabbar for the rest of their lives.”

Maternity errors result in stillbirth of couple’s first baby and significant injuries to mother

Posted on 10 September 202414 May 2025 by Sarah O'Sullivan

Sarah* had a traumatic experience when she lost her baby, and suffered from severe, permanent injuries which led to her decision to leave the UK.

The induction process

Sarah was admitted to a leading NHS Hospital based in London for a planned induction of labour. She was induced in the afternoon and contractions started that same evening. However, even though Sarah was experiencing regular contractions alongside severe levels of pain and bleeding, staff at the Hospital failed to recognise that she was in active labour. That night, the baby’s heart rate was detected dropping during CTG monitoring and there were episodes of shallow decelerations, but no action was taken.

Repeated please for help

The next day, Sarah was given a full dose of gels for induction and regular contractions started during the night. Although Sarah’s husband Daniel* made repeated requests for attention over a period of several hours, no physical checks or CTG monitoring was provided. Sarah’s contractions became more regular and painful, and Daniel again repeatedly asked for help but was ignored.

Tragic loss

On the third day, Daniel once again repeatedly asked for help and for CTG monitoring and by this point, Sarah’s pain levels had become unbearable. CTG monitoring was eventually performed but staff could not detect the baby’s heartbeat. Sarah and Daniel’s baby was heartbreakingly pronounced dead.

Lack of support

Even after the death of her baby was confirmed, Sarah was not offered any consultant support or advised of any alternative options for delivery. She was then left for seven-and-a-half hours pushing on her own to deliver her baby with no physical or psychological support from staff. Sarah’s physical condition became extremely poor, and Daniel was terrified that he would lose his wife as well as his baby. The prolonged second stage of labour resulted in severe, permanent injuries to Sarah.

Emotional and psychological impact

The experience was deeply traumatic with both Sarah and Daniel suffering from significant PTSD. Due to the physical and psychological trauma sustained following the incident, Sarah and Daniel felt they had no choice but to leave their home in London and move abroad to be closer to Sarah’s family for support.

Internal investigation and admission of liability

Following the incident, an internal investigation took place by the NHS Trust involved in which it was accepted that there was a “failure to recognise the onset of active labour during a high-risk induction process, and a failure to commence appropriate care including foetal monitoring once in established labour”.

Shortly after the tragic incident, the couple in their 30s, got in touch with Alison Hills. A letter of claim was sent to the Trust, who promptly admitted liability and accepted that had active labour been diagnosed and continued foetal monitoring been performed, then the baby’s death would have been avoided.

The Trust also admitted that a senior obstetrician should have been involved and advised Sarah about her options for delivery and that if delivery had been expedited after the death of the baby had been confirmed, then Sarah would have avoided the prolonged labour and subsequent injuries.

Ongoing compensation process

An assessment of the couple’s potential lost earnings, care costs, medical expenses, relocation costs and several other expenses is currently underway before negotiations can commence and a final compensation figure can be agreed with the Trust.

Statement from Alison Hills

Tees Law’s Medical Negligence Senior Associate Solicitor Alison Hills said: “This is one of the most tragic cases that I have ever come across in my 20-year career. Not only was the death of Sarah and Daniel’s baby wholly avoidable, but there were several failures of care even after the death was confirmed, which then led to a number of significant and permanent injuries to Sarah. Their lives have simply been turned upside down with every single aspect of their lives being adversely affected.

Whilst no amount of compensation will ever bring their baby back, I am hoping that when their case settles, Sarah and Daniel will be able to achieve some form of closure and start to heal from these heartbreaking events, and that lessons will be learnt for the Trust to avoid similar mistakes being made in the future”.

*Names have been changed to protect the privacy of our clients.

Hospital eventually settles after causing lifetime birth injury

Posted on 3 September 202414 May 2025 by Sarah O'Sullivan

A wrongly sited episiotomy and prolonged second stage of labour caused Lara* lifetime faecal incontinence issues, for which the trust responsible denied liability.

Background

Lara was a first-time mother who had an uneventful pregnancy. She arrived at hospital and was found to be in established labour. She then got to a point where her labour was not progressing as expected, and was given oxytocin to augment labour.

Prolonged second stage of labour

When the cervix becomes fully dilated, it is common practice to allow at least an hour for the baby to descend passively down the birth canal before the mother starts active pushing. Due to an error by the medical and midwifery staff, Lara was left in the second stage of labour for six hours before starting to actively push. She was unable to push the baby out and it was decided to use forceps.

The episiotomy and initial outcome

An episiotomy was carried out to facilitate delivery. Once her baby was born, her perineum was examined and sutured. She was discharged having been told everything had gone well.

Post delivery complications

A few days later, Lara noticed she had no control over passing urine, followed by a lack of control over passing wind and stool. This persisted for weeks before she was referred to a colorectal clinic. Tests confirmed a defect in her anal sphincter area. Despite undergoing therapies, her faecal urgency and inability to control flatus persisted.

Seeking legal support

At this point, Lara contacted Tees for legal support. She filed a formal complaint with the NHS Trust, which responded with an apology, acknowledging the episiotomy had been wrongly sited. Experts were instructed, and a Letter of Claim was sent to the Defendant NHS Trust.

Expert insight

Gwyneth Munjoma, Medical Negligence Senior Associate with Tees, said: “If injury to the anal sphincter is not recognised and appropriately repaired immediately following delivery,repair at a later date is rarely curative. The result is that the woman has to live with an injury which physically impacts on her womanhood, family life, social life and employment. In addition, these women’s entire lives are psychologically affected by the injury of such a sensitive and intimate part of the body.”

Legal challenges and resolution

Despite the letter of apology, the Defendant NHS Trust initially denied liability, further impacting Lara’s psychological well-being. However, the Trust later made a settlement offer. Following negotiations, a six-figure settlement was reached, successfully concluding the case.

Client-centred approach

Reflecting on the case, Gwyneth Munjoma stated:

“As well as my legal training, I have a background in midwifery. With that knowledge, I am able to effectively partner the client bringing in a great deal of knowledge, empathy and understanding throughout the journey of her claim.”

*Names have been changed to protect the privacy of our clients.

Ophthalmic medical negligence claims

Posted on 1 June 202414 May 2025 by Sarah O'Sullivan

A study commissioned by the Royal National Institute for the Blind (RNIB) found that 2 million people in the UK are living with sight loss that is severe enough to have a significant impact on their daily lives. Half of this sight loss was said to have been avoidable with a worrying lack of awareness when it comes to ‘red flag’ symptoms linked to sight-threatening eye conditions.

If you or a family member has suffered from an eye injury due to medical negligence, we know that it will likely have impacted your daily routine, mobility, enjoyment of social situations and might even have affected your career. Here, Sarah Stocker, solicitor for Tees’ medical negligence team, identifies some of the most common eye conditions, including injuries sustained as a result of ophthalmic medical negligence.

Ophthalmic negligence claims

Tees’ clinical negligence team understands that when you seek advice relating to your eyesight from an optician or ophthalmic specialist, you expect professional expertise. You depend upon their diagnosis and recommendations for management and treatment.

Sadly, when mistakes are made by medical professionals, it can result in a particularly distressing time for patients and their families alike. It can mean big changes, some of which can be expensive. You may be struggling to understand why this happened and how you are going to cope now and in the future. If you have suffered from any loss of sight as a result of misdiagnosis, inadequate, delayed or inappropriate treatment, you may be able to claim compensation.

Clinical negligence claims for ophthalmic negligence are highly specialist. Tees Ophthalmic specialists work alongside some of the leading medico-legal experts in the country and have all received visual awareness training from Support4Sight.

What is ophthalmology?

Ophthalmology is a branch of medicine dealing with the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of diseases of the eye and visual system.

Many of us find that our vision naturally gets worse over time, while others might suffer from eye conditions such as macular degeneration, cataracts or glaucoma that can have an adverse effect on our eyesight. Conditions like these can be successfully treated if they’re diagnosed early and can be managed effectively with treatment and medication, helping us to get on with our day-to-day lives

Regular eye checks can also be important to identify other conditions. For example, a reduced visual field may be one of the first signs of a brain tumour.

Examples of ophthalmic negligence claims:

Failure to give appropriate advice on the risks, benefits and other treatment options
Cataract, corneal or vitreo-retinal surgery accidents
Misdiagnosis or delayed diagnosis of high blood pressure in the eyes and glaucoma
Delay in diagnosis and treatment of Giant Cell Arteritis
Misdiagnosis/failure to diagnose ophthalmic conditions such as retinal detachment or Acute Angle Glaucoma
Failure to diagnose, monitor and/ or treat ophthalmic diseases such as macular degeneration and diabetic retinopathy
Failure to identify or investigate a visual field defect/compression of the optic nerve leading to a delayed diagnosis of a brain tumour
Inappropriate or delayed ophthalmic treatment
Misdiagnosis of eye conditions;
Failure to diagnose and/or treat Retinopathy of Prematurity
Misdiagnosis or failed diagnosis of paediatric (children’s) ophthalmology
Surgical accidents, including problems with laser surgery;
Failure to diagnose or misdiagnosis of malignancy (Cancerous cells)

What are the leading causes of sight loss?

age related macular degeneration
cataracts
diabetic Retinopathy
glaucoma

Age-related Macular Degeneration

Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is a problem with the macula that causes sight distortion or loss to central vision. It usually first affects people in their 50s and 60s. It is not painful, and it doesn’t typically result in total sight loss but, without treatment, vision may get worse. This can happen gradually over several years (“dry AMD”), or quickly over a few weeks or months (“wet AMD”).

The exact causes of AMD are unknown but certain factors are thought to increase your chances of developing AMD such as smoking, sunlight, age and gender.

Sometimes AMD may be found during a routine optician’s appointment; a specialist called an optometrist will look at the back of your eye and may refer you to an eye doctor (ophthalmologist) or specialist AMD service. This is usually only necessary if there’s a possibility you’ll need to start treatment quickly.

You may have more tests, such as a scan of the back of your eyes.

Treatment for Wet AMD includes injections. These injections typically do not improve sight but arrest further deterioration.

Cataracts

Cataracts are when the lens of your eye, a small transparent disc, develops cloudy patches. Many people over 60 have some degree of cataracts and the vast majority can be treated successfully.

The most common type of cataract is age-related cataract and they develop as people get older. In younger people cataracts can result from conditions such as diabetes, certain medications and other longstanding eye problems. Cataracts can also be present at birth. These are called congenital cataracts.

Cataract surgery is usually a straightforward procedure that takes 30 to 45 minutes. It’s often carried out as day surgery under local anaesthetic and you go home on the same day.

During the operation, the surgeon will make a tiny cut in your eye to remove the cloudy lens and replace it with a clear plastic one.

The risk of serious complications developing as a result of cataract surgery is very low. Most common complications can be treated with medicines or further surgery. There is a very small risk – around 1 in 1,000 – of permanent sight loss in the treated eye as a direct result of the operation.

Diabetic retinopathy

Diabetic retinopathy is a complication of diabetes, caused by high blood sugar levels damaging the Retina. The blood vessels may swell and leak blood or fluid, or larger blood vessels may become blocked causing new, very weak blood vessels to grow in the wrong place on the retina. In very advanced cases, the retina can become detached.

Anyone with diabetes who is 12 years old or over is invited for eye screening once a year in the UK. Early signs of the condition can be picked up by taking photographs of the eyes during diabetic eye screening. This screening can detect problems in your eyes before they start to affect your vision. If problems are caught early, treatment can help prevent or reduce vision loss.

It can cause blindness if left undiagnosed and untreated.

Glaucoma

Glaucoma is a common eye condition which causes damage to the optic nerve. This damage can be caused by increased pressure in the eye damaging the optic nerve, or by a weakened optic nerve, or often by a combination of the two.

This high pressure in the eye is not linked to blood pressure. It is caused when drainage channels in the eye become blocked and there is a build-up of fluid in the eye.

There are different types of Glaucoma depending upon the speed at which the drainage channels become blocked or whether another eye condition has caused the Glaucoma. In very rare cases babies can have Glaucoma caused by a malformation of the eye.

Glaucoma can develop very slowly and may be symptom-free at first. Left to develop untreated it can cause loss of your side (peripheral) vision leaving you only able to see things directly in front of you (tunnel vision).

Early treatment can help stop your vision becoming severely affected. There are several quick and painless tests that can be carried out by an optometrist if they suspect you have glaucoma after a routine eye test: Eye pressure test, gonioscopy (examination to look at the front part of your eye), visual field test and optic nerve assessment.

If Glaucoma is picked up during an eye test, you should be referred to a specialist eye doctor (ophthalmologist) for further tests. They will confirm your diagnosis and advice on further treatment.

In January 2020, the Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch (HSIB) carried out a national Investigation into the lack of timely follow up for glaucoma patients (a recognised national issue across the NHS). The research found that around 22 patients a month suffer severe or permanent sight loss as a result of the delays. HSIB made a number of recommendations for the management and prioritisation of follow up appointments for glaucoma patients.

Red flag symptoms for sight threatening conditions: Retinal Detachment

Retinal tears can be a precursor to retinal detachment. A retinal tear is able to be detected during any routine eye test and can be monitored and treated before a person’s eyesight is adversely affected.

What is Retinal Detachment?

Retinal Detachment is when the thin layer at the back of your eye (retina) becomes loose. Retinal Detachment requires urgent treatment in order to prevent permanent visual impairment.

Red flag symptoms that require urgent medical attention include, but are not limited to:

Floaters (dots or lines that suddenly appear in vision or suddenly increase in number);
Flashing lights
Dark shadows in your vision
Sudden onset of blurred vision

Who is at risk of a retinal detachment?

Retinal detachments are rare with a rate of 1 in 10,000 people having one each year. Retinal detachments are most likely to occur in people between 40 to 70 years old. Certain factors put some people at a higher risk of developing a retinal detachment:

Short-sightedness;
Have had any recent trauma (an injury or a blow) directly to the eye;
Have a history of previous retinal detachment;
Have a family history of retinal detachment;
Have had previous eye surgery in that eye, such as cataract surgery;
Have certain other eye conditions, such as diabetic retinopathy.

Retinitis Pigmentosa

Retinitis pigmentosa (RP) is a genetic disorder of the eyes that causes loss of vision. The first symptoms include trouble seeing at night and decreased peripheral vision (side vision). As peripheral vision worsens, people may experience “tunnel vision”. Complete blindness is uncommon.

In approximately half of all cases (50 to 60%) there are other family members with RP.

The methods of treatment include gene therapy, stem cell therapy and visual prosthesis. But all these methods own limitations and cannot be conquered in a short period.

First patients began gene therapy treatment for blindness as part of the NHS Long-Term Plan.

How we can help

We understand that complaining about medical treatment can feel daunting and overwhelming, but there are many good reasons for raising concerns about the standard of care and treatment you have received and where there are concerns that something has gone wrong, a claim for negligence.

Eye injury compensation awards vary depending on the degree and severity of the visual loss suffered as a result of any negligence and the help and support needed as a result. Tees’ clinical negligence team work to make sure the compensation reflects the damage caused by negligent eye treatment and your current and future condition.

Compensation can cover these costs

Any long-term care costs
Specialist equipment – such as visual aids, walking sticks, home adaptations
Further treatment from an ophthalmology expert
Expenses – for travel costs to treatment and therapy appointments
Loss of earnings – up to retirement age in the most severe instances
Physical and emotional pain and suffering

If you have suffered a loss of vision as a result of substandard care and need compensation to help you move forward, then you should consider bringing a medical negligence claim.