Medical Negligence Archives

Hospital eventually settles after causing lifetime birth injury

Posted on 3 September 202427 March 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 202423 March 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 have suffered from an eye injury as a result of medical negligence, we know that it is likely to have impacted your daily routine, mobility, enjoyment of social situations and might even have affected your career. Here Sarah Stocker, Solicitor in 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 the result of misdiagnosis, inadequate, delayed or inappropriate treatment, you could 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.

Coroner: Baby’s death at NHS Trust due to neglect

Posted on 22 May 202427 March 2025 by Sarah O'Sullivan

A baby who died from a brain injury following a delayed labour and delivery was failed by staff at Sherwood Forest Hospitals NHS Trust, a Coroner has concluded.

Arlo River Phoenix Lambert died on 9 March 2023 at Kingsmill Hospital, Nottinghamshire, at five days old. The Coroner found that Arlo’s death was “contributed to by mismanagement of labour and multiple missed opportunities to have expedited his delivery.”

She concluded that neglect contributed to Arlo’s death, which came from “a failure to follow Trust guidance.”

Miss Lambert, Arlo’s mother, was induced at 40+2 weeks, and following spontaneous rupture of membranes (SROM), she was left for 17 hours without any attempts made to progress her labour. The Coroner found that this allowed the risk of infection to materialise. During that time, staff failed to properly review Miss Lambert’s care plan and discuss modes of delivery with her when concerns were raised about the position of the baby and her labour was failing to progress.

Coroners findings on contributing factors

The Coroner concluded that neglect contributed to Arlo’s death, citing a “failure to follow Trust guidance.”

Miss Lambert, Arlo’s mother, was induced at 40+2 weeks. After a spontaneous rupture of membranes (SROM), she was left for 17 hours without attempts to progress her labour. The Coroner found that this delay allowed the risk of infection to materialise. Staff also failed to properly review her care plan or discuss delivery options when concerns arose about the baby’s position and the lack of labour progression.

Missed opportunities and preventable death

The Coroner identified “multiple missed opportunities to have expedited Arlo’s delivery, which would probably have prevented his death.” A Prevention of Future Deaths Report has been issued.

Since Arlo’s death, Miss Lambert has experienced post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

Complaint against specialist registrar

Additionally, the Coroner made a complaint to the General Medical Council regarding the actions of Specialist Registrar Dr Adeyemi. In oral evidence, he stated that he would “cross [my] fingers behind my back and hope and pray the mother would go into labour” rather than implementing an appropriate care plan.

Evidence of brain injury

A post-mortem autopsy confirmed that Arlo’s brain had suffered a hypoxic-ischaemic injury, caused by a lack of adequate oxygenated blood supply. This was attributed to the delayed delivery following fetal distress.

Failings in antenatal and labour care

The Coroner found significant issues in Miss Lambert’s care between her induction of labour on 2 March 2023 and Arlo’s birth on 4 March 2023.

Antenatal failings

At 38+6 weeks gestation, Miss Lambert underwent a growth scan and was offered induction at 40+2 weeks due to concerns about fetal growth. However, the Coroner concluded that this decision was outside national guidelines, and Miss Lambert was not informed that the induction was unnecessary. The Coroner stated that she would likely have gone into spontaneous labour without complications.

Labour management failures

Upon Miss Lambert’s admission, numerous delays in commencing the induction occurred, exacerbated by poor communication and staff shortages.

At 11:33 on 3 March, a high fetal head position was noted, presenting a missed opportunity to consider a delivery plan. Additionally, the decision to discontinue CTG monitoring, against national guidance, prevented the detection of fetal distress.

By 17:00, Dr Adeyemi formulated a delivery plan without consulting Miss Lambert, reviewing her records, or considering her preferences.

The Coroner concluded that had the Trust’s induction of labour policy been followed, and delivery occurred within two hours of SROM, Arlo’s death could have been avoided.

Delayed caesarean section and birth complications

At 21:43, a further opportunity was missed when blood-stained liquor was reported. A lack of communication between the midwife and obstetric team meant that the mode of delivery was not reconsidered.

Doctors eventually opted for a category 1 caesarean section at 03:58 on 4 March, following concerns of placental abruption. At 04:26, Arlo was delivered via a difficult caesarean, with evidence of a placental abruption. Despite specialist care at the Queen’s Medical Centre, he died five days later.

Specific failings identified by the Coroner

The Coroner outlined the following key failings:

Failure to follow the Trust’s induction policy.
Inadequate monitoring of fetal distress.
Poor communication and staff shortages.
Lack of consideration for Miss Lambert’s informed consent.

Had Arlo been delivered sooner, the Coroner concluded that he “would more likely than not have survived.”

Calls for maternity care reform

Following a series of high-profile scandals, NHS Trusts face mounting pressure to improve maternity care. A recent Birth Trauma Inquiry condemned poor maternity and postnatal care as “tolerated as normal,” calling for systemic reform.

Family’s response and legal representation

Chantae Clark of Tees Law, representing the family, stated:

“These tragic events were preventable if Sherwood Forest Hospitals NHS Trust had followed the guidance and acted on the warning signs in the hours before Miss Lambert’s labour. It is hard to believe that in such an advanced healthcare system, a mother should suffer the treatment that she did and that a baby should die because of neglect.”

She emphasised the emotional toll on Arlo’s family and expressed hope that the Coroner’s findings and Prevention of Future Deaths Report will lead to meaningful changes in NHS maternity care.

Medical negligence in mental health: Essex NHS Trust Inquiry

Posted on 23 April 202423 March 2025 by Sarah O'Sullivan

Mental health care in the UK has faced growing scrutiny in recent years, with numerous cases of medical negligence exposing systemic failings. One of the most concerning examples is the Essex Partnership University NHS Trust (EPUT), where the deaths of hundreds of mental health patients have led to the establishment of the Lampard Inquiry.

This article explores the circumstances that led to the inquiry, the objectives of the investigation, and how Tees Law can provide expert legal support for those seeking justice.

The crisis in UK mental health care

The NHS is renowned globally for its healthcare services, but mental healthcare has been severely under-resourced. Inadequate staffing, poor patient management, and insufficient oversight have led to numerous preventable deaths. At EPUT alone, the Lampard Inquiry will investigate up to 2,000 patient deaths between 2000 and December 31, 2023.

Essex partnership university NHS trust: A history of failings

EPUT has faced criticism for its substandard mental health care, with repeated reports of negligence and avoidable fatalities. Families of deceased patients have long demanded accountability. In 2021, the Trust was fined £1.5 million for failing to prevent suicides, yet concerns about patient safety persist.

Health and Social Care Secretary Victoria Atkins emphasized the importance of learning from these failures, stating, “We will ensure lessons are learned.”

The Lampard inquiry: Objectives and scope

The Lampard Inquiry, led by Baroness Kate Lampard CBE, aims to provide an independent investigation into mental health inpatient deaths. It will also examine the care provided by the North East London NHS Foundation Trust in Essex. Key areas of focus include:

Serious failings: Investigating instances of unsafe or inadequate inpatient treatment and care, including cases where harm short of death occurred.
Patient engagement: Evaluating how patients were involved in decisions about their care.
Family involvement: Assessing the extent to which families, carers, and support networks were included in care discussions.
Staff actions and behaviour: Scrutinising the conduct of permanent, temporary, and agency staff involved in patient care.
Trust culture and governance: Examining the governance structures, internal investigations, and cultural environment at EPUT.
Public body interaction: Analysing how the Trust interacted with external bodies such as regulators, coroners, and commissioners.

The human impact: Sandra Woods’ story

Tees Law has represented many families affected by medical negligence, including Sandra Woods, whose husband Mick died as a result of EPUT’s failures. Sandra shared her experience:

“My husband died because of the serious failings of EPUT. The Coroner concluded that Mick’s care amounted to neglect. My grieving family is one of thousands who have suffered unnecessarily. Even after the Trust’s £1.5 million fine, it seems lessons remain unlearned. I hope the Lampard Inquiry will finally bring an end to these failures.”

How Tees Law can help

If you or a loved one has experienced medical negligence in mental health care, Tees Law offers dedicated legal support. Our experienced solicitors can assist you with:

Case evaluation: We provide clear advice on whether you have grounds for a medical negligence claim.
Claim investigation: Our team thoroughly investigates your case, gathers evidence, and builds a strong legal argument.
Legal representation: We advocate on your behalf at inquests, inquiries, and court proceedings.
Compassionate support: Our solicitors provide empathetic guidance throughout the legal process.

Seeking justice with Tees Law

Medical negligence in mental health care demands accountability. The Lampard Inquiry is a vital step toward identifying systemic issues and preventing future tragedies. At Tees Law, we are committed to helping families seek justice and ensure their voices are heard.

Contact us

If you believe you have a medical negligence claim, contact Tees Law today. Our specialist solicitors are here to listen, support, and provide the expert legal assistance you need.

A family’s fight for justice over hospital’s failings

Posted on 21 March 202427 March 2025 by Sarah O'Sullivan

The family of an 85-year-old woman who passed away in early 2022 have spoken out against a Norfolk hospital that incorrectly treated their mother and contributed to her death.

First hospital visit

Marlene Webb was admitted to James Paget University Hospital on 14 December 2021 after she suffered a fall whilst out delivering Christmas cards. Although Ms Webb had a few pre-existing health conditions, she had been independent and mobile, undertaking all her own daily needs in her house, before her fall.

On the day Ms Webb was admitted to the Great Yarmouth hospital, her weight was incorrectly recorded as 77kg, when in fact she was just under 60kg. The blood thinning medication she was on (warfarin) to treat her pre-existing atrial fibrillation was stopped.

The day after, on 15 December, Ms Webb underwent hip surgery for the injuries sustained during her fall. Later that evening though, she began feeling sick and vomited a dark colour. After this, the hospital queried an upper gastrointestinal bleed, but it was deemed unlikely.

Following this, Ms Webb received numerous blood transfusions due to low levels of haemoglobin (found in red blood cells, haemoglobin transports oxygen around the body). She was prescribed blood thinning medication edoxaban to help prevent blood clots. However, the prescription was based on her weight – which had been incorrectly recorded at 77kg – meaning she was being given a higher dose than her body could take. The dosage prescribed to her was 60mg, when it should have been 30mg, based on her weight. Ms Webb continued taking this incorrect dosage for over a month, until one day before her death.

The side effects of edoxaban can include:

Can cause individuals to bleed more than usual (as it prevents the blood from clotting as easily)
Tiredness
Heart palpitations
Feeling dizzy or lightheaded
Nausea
Stomach pain
Indigestion

More serious side effects can include:

Severe bleeding
Bleeds on the brain

A form completed at the hospital on 23 December 2021 shows Ms Webb’s weight being at 57.75kg. Even at this point, nine days after her hospital admission, this was not picked up and she continued to be given the incorrect dosage of edoxaban.

Back home

On 28 December, Ms Webb was discharged from hospital. Her medical notes from that day state she had some ‘delirium.’

Back at home, Ms Webb was initially thought to have been making a good recovery, but by 5 January 2022, a GP home visit was requested by her family as her legs were swollen and she seemed very confused. Since she had been home, she was becoming more forgetful and was experiencing more regular falls. This was a stark difference from how she was when she first went to the hospital. In the space of three days, she had four falls. She was also hallucinating and speaking to people who were not present.

Second hospital visit

An ambulance took Ms Webb back to hospital on 18 January 2022 after she suffered a head injury from another fall. Upon her admission this time, her weight was recorded at 54kg. her dosage of edoxaban was still not altered and she remained confused and delirious.

An extract from her medical records on 23 January shows what her mental state was like: “Patient is very confused, shouting and crying at times … declining to drink and eat … trying to remove oxygen at times” … “doesn’t believe we are in hospital. Keeps trying to get out of bed. Doesn’t believe I am a doctor. Wants to phone the police. Explained to pt she is poorly … Does not have capacity … Pt left to calm down for a few minutes.”

On 28 January, Ms Webb was given a blood transfusion. On hospital documents, it is stated that this was necessary due to gastrointestinal bleeding and anaemia. Sadly, Ms Webb did not respond to this treatment and passed away just before 9am on 29 January 2022.

The death certificate of Ms Webb lists the causes of death as:

“I(a) Gastrointestinal Haemorrhage / II Frailty of Old Age / Atrial Fibrillation (On Anticoagulation) / Hypertension”

James Paget University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

On the day of Ms Webb’s death, the Trust submitted two incident reports. One of those recorded:

“Patient should not have died due to GI bleed.” The root cause was recorded as: “Edoxaban being prescribed at an incorrect (higher) dose due to incorrect weight recording as of the 28th December 2022. A 7-day delay in starting an alternative to PPI to avoid rebound acid hypersecretion and predisposition to upper GI bleeding.”

The outcome of the second report is recorded as “staff did not adhere to policy. Time management, staffing issues and enhanced supervision of patients led to delays in care provision of blood transfusion.”

These findings were also repeated in the Trust’s Root Cause Analysis Investigation Report.

The legal claim

Tees’ Medical Negligence team identified several failings in the care the hospital had provided, including a failure to correctly record Ms Webb’s weight; a failure to carry out further investigations for a gastrointestinal bleed despite Ms Webb having exhibited symptoms on 15 December; the prescription of an incorrect dosage of edoxaban and a failure to stop prescribing it on the realisation that it had been over-prescribed. There was also a failure to prescribe alternative medication to prevent gastrointestinal bleeds whilst she was on edoxaban.

The evidence was that the over-prescription of edoxaban led to her becoming confused and causing hallucinations, suffering from bruising, a general decline in her health and recurrent falls. It also caused or exacerbated the upper gastrointestinal bleed, which caused her death.

Trust response

James Paget University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust admitted that an incorrect dosage of edoxaban was prescribed but denied that this caused the injuries complained of.

The Trust did, however, admit that there was a failure to administer alternative gastroprotection whilst she was receiving edoxaban and that if it wasn’t for this failure, she would not have developed the gastrointestinal bleed and sadly died on 29 January 2022.

In January 2024, Ms Webb’s family settled their claim out of court against James Paget University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust.

Impact on the family

Ms Webb’s family said: “Although the Trust admitted fault for the staff’s wrongdoings in relation to the incorrect dosage of edoxaban that was given to our mother, we find it extremely disappointing that they have denied the full impact of this on our mother.

“We think it’s so important to speak out. We were not even able to see our mother when she was in hospital – The Covid-19 pandemic being used as an excuse, despite things having improved significantly by that time. We will never get that time back which could have been so important for us to see her and raise our concerns if we had seen her.

“We found it very difficult to find out how our mum was doing in hospital and were not kept informed, we kept telling ourselves that she was in the best place, but we do not believe she was, had we been told what was happening and how upset our mum was we could have told the doctors that there was something seriously wrong. We were not told that mum was in her last hours and therefore we were not all by her bedside when she passed. The hospital responds that they are learning, which just isn’t good enough, they failed to get the basics correct and their neglect contributed (if not caused) the demise of our beloved mum.

“As a family, we now meet up more than we did before which our mum would have loved, mum was the life and soul of a party and I’m sure many people have fond memories of her. We cannot put into words how this tragedy has affected us all and find it difficult to deal with especially being robbed of time in her last moments.

“We are devastated by the actions of the JPH and we cannot get our mum back, we want people to be made aware that mistakes are being made and that if anyone feels something isn’t quite right with their loved ones care shout from the rooftops for a second opinion, we would hate for another family to go through this trauma. We would also like to thank Tees who were excellent from the outset.”

Medical negligence solicitors supporting clients to a better future

At Tees Law, our specialist lawyers are ranked Tier 1 in the Legal 500 and understand that concerns about treatment can be overwhelming. We are here to provide sensitive, personal legal advice, supporting you, while also ensuring that wider lessons are learnt to improve care.

Understanding medical negligence in breast cancer

Posted on 18 March 202423 March 2025 by Sarah O'Sullivan

As part of Tees’ ongoing commitment to raising awareness about important legal and medical issues, we’ve prepared the following guide exploring the interaction between breast cancer and medical negligence. This guide aims to provide an overview of misdiagnosed breast cancer, common issues in medical care and bringing a legal claim, as well as providing resources for those affected.

What is breast cancer: Understanding the disease and risk factors

Breast cancer is the most common cancer in the UK, with around 55,900 people diagnosed every year. Breast cancer can occur in men and women, though it is significantly more common in women with one in seven women in the UK developing breast cancer during their lifetime.

Causes and risk factors

The cause of breast cancer is not fully understood, though research has shown several factors can impact the risk of developing the disease, including:

Age- most breast cancers occur in women over 50
Being overweight or obese
Drinking alcohol
Taking the contraceptive pill or HRT
A family history of breast cancer
Previous benign breast disease
A previous diagnosis of breast cancer

Symptoms

The NHS Breast Screening Programme invites all women between the ages of 50-70 registered with a GP for screening every three years. It is important however to look out for potential symptoms of breast cancer, which can include:

A lump or thickening in the breast or armpit
Alterations in the size or shape of the breast
Dimpling or puckering of the skin
Changes in the nipple, such as inversion, discharge, or rash
Redness or swelling of the breast
Continual pain or discomfort

It is imperative to consult a medical professional for further examination if you notice any of these symptoms.

Breast cancer diagnosis

Diagnosis with breast cancer can occur after routine screening or on consulting with your GP having noticed symptoms. You GP will examine you and if they think further investigation is needed will refer you to a specialist breast cancer clinic. Investigations can include:

Examination
Mammogram
Breast Ultrasound
Biopsy – including needle aspiration, needle biopsy or vacuum assisted biopsy

Treatment

Once a diagnosis of breast cancer has been made more tests may be required to establish the type of cancer and to stage the disease. These tests may include MRI or CT scans, blood tests, and checking lymph nodes for cancer cells. The exact combination of treatment will depend on the type and stage of the disease, however, the main treatments for breast cancer are:

Surgery
Radiotherapy
Chemotherapy
Hormone therapy
Targeted therapy

The prognosis for breast cancer is generally good, particularly with early diagnosis. Survival will depend on the type and stage of the cancer, your level of health and fitness, and whether you have had any previous treatments.

The legal perspective: Breach of duty and causation

To be successful in a medical negligence claim it is necessary to prove that:

The standard of care provided fell below the level normally to be expected of a practitioner in that field or specialisation at the relevant time (Breach of Duty). If the practitioner can show in his/her defence that there is a body of competent practitioners who would have acted in the same way, the claim will not succeed.
The damage suffered is a direct consequence of the negligent acts or omissions (causation). The fact that a practitioner can be shown to have been negligent is not sufficient on its own – You must be able to establish that there is a direct causal link between the negligence and the injury for which you are claiming compensation. This link between cause and injury is not as obvious as it sounds and must be supported by independent medical opinion.

Medical negligence and breast cancer: Categories and causes

A diagnosis of breast cancer is always devastating, however, if there has been negligent treatment this can lead to delays in diagnosis and treatment which could allow the cancer to progress. Negligence in diagnosing and treating breast cancer can have a devastating impact on patients, affecting the stage and grade of disease, and treatment options, and potentially reducing the chance of survival.

Common types of negligence in breast cancer claims include:

Failing to refer a patient for further investigation;
Failing to investigate symptoms adequately;
Misdiagnosis;
Failure to report scans and interpret investigation reports properly;
Inappropriate treatment plans;
Substandard surgery;
Delays in providing treatment;
Failing to provide adequate follow-up.

How to claim compensation for medical negligence in breast

Compensation aims to put the patient back in the position they would have been in had the negligence not occurred.

The first step in bringing a legal claim is to collect the evidence to establish a breach of duty and causation. This includes obtaining medical records, taking witness statements, and liaising with independent medical experts to identify whether negligence has occurred and, if so, the impact.

Compensation levels will be assessed based on the unique circumstances of each situation, taking into account the injuries and losses resulting from negligence. Compensation can be claimed for the pain, suffering and loss of amenity resulting from the negligence, including additional or more invasive surgeries or treatment required, psychiatric damage, scarring, and a reduction in life expectancy or worse prognosis. Compensation can also be claimed for financial losses including loss of earnings, care, medical treatments and therapies, aids and equipment, and travel.

If you believe you’ve been harmed as a result of medical negligence in a breast cancer case, it’s vital to consult skilled solicitors who possess a profound comprehension of breast cancer claims. At Tees our specialist medical negligence solicitors have expertise in breast cancer claims and have successfully secured compensation for many patients who have suffered injuries because of negligent breast cancer care and treatment, and for those who have lost loved ones due to substandard care. Our experienced solicitors will guide you through the legal process and support you to obtain the compensation necessary to move forward.

Support and resources for victims of medical negligence

If you or a loved one have suffered from negligent care or treatment in respect of breast cancer it can feel overwhelming and incredibly distressing. However, it’s important to know that you are not alone. There are various support options available to help you navigate through this challenging time and here at Tees we will not only guide you through the legal process to obtain compensation but will direct you to specialist services to support you through this difficult time.

These resources can provide valuable information and insights, helping you make informed decisions about your situation.

For further help and information, you may find it beneficial to explore the following resources:

These trusted sources offer comprehensive information on breast cancer, including details about the condition, its diagnosis, available treatments, and support networks.

At Tees Law, our expert medical negligence solicitors are committed to helping victims of medical negligence in breast cancer cases. We understand the complexities of these claims and work tirelessly to ensure our clients receive the compensation they deserve. Our initial investigations are entirely free of charge and, should we consider there are sufficient prospects of success to bring a legal claim, we can bring breast cancer claims on a no-win, no-fee basis. If you have concerns about your care or treatment concerning breast cancer, contact us today to discuss your case and explore your legal options with our dedicated team of specialist solicitors.

NHS Trusts respond after accepting liability for avoidable death of mental health patient

Posted on 14 March 202427 March 2025 by Sarah O'Sullivan

Two NHS Trusts that accepted liability for the preventable death of Jack Farrington have responded to the Regulation 28 Prevention of Future Deaths Report, outlining changes that they have since made to improve patient safety.

Solent NHS Trust and Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust have accepted full liability for the preventable death of Jack Farrington, a 26-year-old man who took his own life while detained under section 2 of the Mental Health Act in January 2020.

Trust Failings and Areas for improvement

The Trusts’ failings were found to have contributed to Jack’s ability to abscond from the hospital. Key areas requiring improvement include:

Assessment and recording of patient information
Information sharing
Accountability
Implementation of measures to ensure patient safety

Actions taken by the NHS Trusts

Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust’s response

Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust stated that it is developing a new system to provide the Emergency Department team with more comprehensive information about patients’ needs and risks before their arrival.

Solent NHS Trust’s response

Solent NHS Trust announced that it is transitioning from paper-based forms to an electronic system integrated with the existing online platform, improving the accuracy and accessibility of patient information.

National NHS response

Professor Sir Stephen Powis, National Medical Director of NHS England, highlighted that Summary Care Records now include details of long-term conditions, significant medical history, and specific communication needs by default, unless a patient has opted out.

Jack Farrington’s story

Jack Farrington, who lived with bipolar disorder and schizophrenia, tragically died after absconding from Queen Alexandra Hospital in Portsmouth. He fell from a bridge over the A3 London Road in January 2020.

Legal action and family’s response

Jack’s parents, Joseph and Catherine Farrington, pursued a civil action against both Trusts with the support of Tees Law. The legal claim concluded in January 2024.

Chantae Clark, from Tees Law, commented on the significance of the case:

“This case underscores the pressing need for improvements in mental health care and highlights the importance of robust oversight and accountability across the NHS and mental health services.”

Findings from the inquest

An Inquest concluded that Jack was not capable of forming an intention to end his life. When he was lucid, he showed a desire to recover and sought medical assistance.

Timeline of events leading to Jack’s death

30 December 2019: Jack called 999 during a psychotic episode and was voluntarily admitted to Queen Alexandra Hospital (QAH).
Initial Risk Assessment: Jack received a ‘Mental Disturbance Primary Survey’ with a risk score of 8, the highest level, requiring Level 5 (black) supervision.
First Absconding Incident: While waiting for further assessments, Jack absconded through an emergency exit.
Second Absconding Incident: After being returned to the hospital by the Police, Jack absconded again the following day.
Detainment and Transfer: Jack was sectioned under Section 2 of the Mental Health Act and transferred to the Hawthorn Ward under Solent NHS Trust.
Insufficient Risk Consideration: Despite his history of absconding, his risk was not properly addressed by the Hawthorn Ward.
Seizure and Return to QAH: On 2 January 2020, Jack suffered a seizure and was returned to QAH, where he was placed in the Emergency Department’s “Pitstop” area.
Final Absconding Incident: Jack absconded once again and tragically took his own life.

Coroner’s prevention of future deaths report

The Coroner issued a Prevention of Future Deaths Report, warning of the risk of future deaths without appropriate action. Key concerns included:

Inadequate handovers
Poor record keeping

The Report was directed to Solent NHS Trust, Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust, and NHS England.

Conclusion

Chantae Clark of Tees Law emphasised the importance of the legal process in driving change:

“Whilst the Inquest process and pursuing legal action cannot undo the pain caused by Jack’s tragic death, I hope that the conclusion of this case, coupled with the Coroner’s Prevention of Future Deaths Report, serves as a catalyst for change.”

Jack’s family, supported by Tees Law, remain committed to ensuring that lessons are learned to prevent similar tragedies in the future.

Understanding prostate cancer and medical negligence

Posted on 14 February 202423 March 2025 by Sarah O'Sullivan

Prostate cancer is a common form of cancer that affects men, particularly those aged 50 and above. However, it’s not the disease alone that poses a threat to the patient’s health. Inaccurate diagnosis, delayed treatment, and medical negligence can exacerbate the condition, leading to life-threatening complications.

What is prostate cancer?

The prostate is a small walnut-sized gland part of the male reproductive system. It is located between the bladder and the penis, encircling the urethra. Its primary function is to produce a thick white fluid that forms semen when mixed with the sperm produced by the testes.

The prostate gland is susceptible to cancerous growth, leading to prostate cancer. Prostate cancer develops when the cells in the prostate gland mutate and start to multiply out of control. These cells can then spread from the prostate to other parts of the body, particularly the bones and lymph nodes, in a process known as metastasis.

Prostate cancer in the UK

According to Cancer Research UK prostate cancer is the most common cancer in men, with around 48,500 new cases diagnosed every year. The disease is more prevalent in older men, with most cases being diagnosed in men aged 50 or older. It is also more common in black men and less common in Asian men for reasons currently unknown. Lifestyle factors such as diet and exercise also contribute to an individual’s risk of developing prostate cancer.

Symptoms of prostate cancer

Prostate cancer typically develops slowly, often without noticeable symptoms in the early stages.

Once the prostate is large enough to affect the urethra, symptoms may include:

Increased need to urinate
Straining while urinating
Feeling that the bladder is not completely empty
Blood in the urine or semen
Erectile dysfunction
Pelvic discomfort

These symptoms alone do not confirm prostate cancer but should not be ignored.

Diagnosis and treatment

There is no single test for prostate cancer. The diagnosis is typically based on a combination of the following tests:

Blood tests, including a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test
Digital rectal examination (DRE)
Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) scan
Biopsy

Depending on the stage and grade of the cancer, as well as the patient’s overall health and patient preferences, treatment options may include:

Watchful waiting or active surveillance
Surgery to remove the prostate (radical prostatectomy)
Radiotherapy (external beam or brachytherapy)
Hormone therapy
Chemotherapy

The choice of treatment is a collaborative decision between patients and their healthcare professionals, considering the risks and benefits of each option.

Early detection of prostate cancer significantly improves treatment outcomes and overall prognosis.

Medical negligence and prostate cancer

Medical negligence is a term used to describe a situation where a healthcare provider fails to provide the standard of care that a competent professional would have provided, resulting in harm to the patient. In the context of prostate cancer, medical negligence can occur in various ways:

Delayed diagnosis: Factors contributing to misdiagnosis of delayed diagnosis may include not listening to a patient’s concerns; failing to correctly interpret symptoms; inadequate screening; misinterpretation of test results; and failing to refer the patient to a specialist.
Misdiagnosis: Misdiagnosing prostate cancer as a urinary tract infection, an enlarged prostate, or prostatitis.
Inappropriate treatment: In some cases, patients may receive inappropriate or unnecessary treatment for prostate cancer due to errors in diagnosis or management decisions.
Surgical complications: Surgical intervention, such as radical prostatectomy, carries inherent risks of complications including urinary incontinence, erectile dysfunction and bowel dysfunction. However, instances of surgical negligence, such as improper surgical technique can compromise patient outcomes.

The impact of medical negligence

When prostate cancer is detected early, the chances of successful treatment are high. However, if there are significant delays in diagnosis or treatment due to medical negligence, the cancer can spread, becoming life-threatening. In such cases, the patient may be entitled to make a medical negligence claim.

Making a medical negligence claim

If you or a loved one has been impacted by medical negligence, consider seeking legal advice. A medical negligence claim can help you receive compensation for the physical, emotional, and financial harm you have suffered due to the negligence.

These claims are complex, so it’s vital to select a legal expert in this field.

At Tees our specialist medical negligence solicitors can guide you through the process, offering clear, straightforward advice at each step.

This article is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always consult a qualified legal professional for advice on your specific situation.

The importance of court approval in fatal accident claims involving children

Posted on 7 February 202423 March 2025 by Sarah O'Sullivan

Understanding the importance of court approval in fatal accident claims involving children: Lessons from Bayless v Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust

The recent High Court case of Bayless v Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust ([2023] EWHC 2986 (KB) (23 November 2023)) underscores the critical role of court approval in fatal accident claims involving children. This case offers valuable insights for claimants, defendants, and legal professionals, highlighting the consequences of failing to obtain court approval for settlements.

Key facts of the case

The case concerned the tragic death of Mr. Stephen Bayless, who passed away due to a misdiagnosis by the Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital. His widow, acting as the claimant, pursued a claim for dependency under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 and the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934 on behalf of herself and their two children. A settlement was reached in 2019, and compensation and costs were paid.

Following the liquidation of the law firm representing the claimant, she instructed Tees to bring a secondary victim claim for psychiatric injury on behalf of herself and the children. The defendant Trust applied to strike out the new claim, arguing that it was settled in 2019 or constituted an abuse of process.

Why Court Approval Matters in Child Claims

Under Rule 21.10 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998, any settlement involving minors must receive court approval to be legally binding. In Bayless, the 2019 settlement had not been approved by the court, rendering it ineffective. This oversight left both the claimant and the defendant at risk.

Application of the Henderson v Henderson rule

The defendant Trust relied on the principle from Henderson v Henderson (1843), which prevents parties from bringing multiple claims that could have been addressed in a single proceeding. However, the court rejected this argument. Because the settlement lacked court approval, it could not prevent the claimant from pursuing her personal injury claim.

The Court’s decision on the strike-out application

Mr. Justice Pepperall dismissed the Trust’s strike-out application, finding that:

The 2019 settlement did not compromise the claimant’s personal injury claim as it was not initially asserted.
The lack of court approval meant the settlement was invalid.
The claimant had acted in good faith without knowledge of her psychiatric injury at the time.

Consequences of failing to obtain court approval

The absence of court approval had several consequences:

The claimant retained the right to pursue further claims.
The Trust faced the risk of the claimant withdrawing from the 2019 settlement.
Even if the parties agreed to proceed with the previous settlement, court approval would still be necessary.

Responsibility for procedural compliance

While the Trust criticised the claimant’s former legal representatives, the court highlighted that the Trust’s own solicitors were equally responsible for ensuring court approval was obtained. Both parties share a duty to adhere to procedural rules when settling claims involving children.

Costs order and final ruling

When the Trust withdrew its strike-out application, the court ordered it to pay the claimant’s legal costs. Mr. Justice Pepperall found that the Trust’s failure to properly investigate the issue was a primary factor in the unnecessary litigation expenses.

“The Trust withdrew an application that it ought to have realised, on proper investigation, was always liable to be dismissed. In doing so it has put [the Claimant] at unnecessary cost and it should now pay her costs on a standard basis.”

Lessons for legal professionals

The Bayless case is a stark reminder of the importance of court approval in fatal accident claims involving children. Legal professionals must ensure that:

Court approval is obtained for all settlements involving minors.
Clear documentation and communication are maintained throughout the process.
Procedural compliance is verified to prevent unnecessary legal disputes.

By adhering to these principles, claimants and defendants can protect their interests, avoid costly litigation, and ensure fair outcomes in fatal accident claims.

If you have questions about court approval in fatal accident claims or need legal advice, consulting with our experienced solicitors could provide the guidance you need.

Guide to medical negligence in skin cancer cases

Posted on 7 February 202423 March 2025 by Sarah O'Sullivan

One of the most devastating experiences anyone can go through is the diagnosis of cancer. Although there are many forms of cancer, delayed diagnosis or negligent treatment of skin cancer can have significant consequences.

This article aims to provide an in-depth understanding of medical negligence in the context of skin cancer, emphasising the importance of prompt diagnosis and appropriate treatment.

Definition of skin cancer

Skin cancer is a medical condition categorised by the uncontrolled growth of abnormal skin cells. It generally develops in skin areas exposed to the sun but can also manifest in places that are not ordinarily exposed to sunlight.

Skin cancer is one of the most common types of cancer globally and is the fifth most common cancer in the UK, with about 16,200 new cases each year, so understanding its types is crucial for awareness and early detection.

The three most common forms of skin cancer are basal cell carcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, and melanoma.

Basal Cell Carcinoma (BCC)

Description: Basal cell carcinoma is the most common and least aggressive form of skin cancer. It arises from the basal cells, which are in the deepest layer of the epidermis (the outer layer of the skin).
Appearance: BCCs often appear as a change in the skin and are slow growing. They might look like a pearly or waxy bump, a flat, flesh-coloured or brown scar-like lesion, or a bleeding or scabbing sore that heals and returns.
Common Locations: Typically develops in areas frequently exposed to the sun, such as the face, ears, neck, scalp, shoulders, and back. Those with fair skin who burn easily are most at risk of suffering from BCC.
Treatment: Treatment options include surgical removal, topical treatments, radiation therapy, and in some cases, photodynamic therapy, or laser surgery. BCC’s are generally not considered life threatening, but can return if not adequately treated.

Squamous Cell Carcinoma (SCC)

Description: Squamous cell carcinoma is the second most common form of skin cancer. It originates from the squamous cells that make up the middle and outer layers of the skin.
Appearance: SCC can appear as a red firm bump, a scaly patch, or a sore that heals and then reopens. It can become more aggressive than BCC if not treated.
Common Locations: Often found on areas of the body damaged by UV radiation from the sun or tanning beds, including the rim of the ear, face, neck, arms, chest, and back, but can occur on other parts of the body. Immunosuppressed individuals are particularly at risk of developing SCC.
Treatment: Early-stage SCC can often be treated with minor surgery or sometimes with topical medications. More advanced cases may require more extensive surgical procedures, radiation, or chemotherapy. If found and treated early, SCC can be cured.

Melanoma

Description: Melanoma is the most dangerous form of skin cancer. It develops in the melanocytes, which are the cells that produce melanin, the pigment that gives skin its color. According to a study performed by Brighten and Sussex Medical School in 2021, incidence rates of skin cancer (cutaneous malignant melanoma) have increased more than 550% in males and 250% in females since the early 1980s in England.
Appearance: Melanomas can occur anywhere on the body, not only in areas exposed to the sun. They are characterized by the appearance of a new mole or a change in an existing mole, which follow the ABCDE rule (Asymmetry, Border, Color, Diameter, Evolving).
Common Locations: Can develop anywhere on the body, including less exposed areas such as the soles of the feet, palms, and under the nails.
Treatment: Treatment will first involve surgical removal of the affected tissue. Then, depending on the stage and location, further treatment may be offered such as pharmacological immunotherapy, targeted therapy such as chemotherapy or radiation therapy.

Causes and symptoms of skin cancer

Ultraviolet radiation from sunlight or tanning beds is the primary cause of skin cancer. Factors such as age, skin type, number of moles on the body, and family history of skin cancer can also increase the risk. Immunosuppressed individuals are also at higher risk of developing skin cancer. Symptoms may include new skin growths, changes in existing moles, and skin sores that do not heal.

Diagnosis of skin cancer

The importance of a timely and accurate diagnosis cannot be overstated when it comes to managing skin cancer effectively. Typically, a medical professional, well-versed in the field, will conduct a thorough physical examination. This will usually be a GP or a dermatologist. Further tests can include examination under a dermatoscope, or an excision biopsy, which is where a portion of the affected tissue is surgically removed, under local anesthetic, and sent to a lab for testing. The significance of an accurate diagnosis is paramount, as any delay or error in diagnosis can lead to the cancer spreading. If cancer spreads, it becomes more challenging to treat, which can result in more extensive and invasive treatment.

Treatment of skin cancer

The treatment options for skin cancer depend on the type, stage, and location of the cancer, as well as the patient’s overall health. Surgery is the most common treatment method, usually under local anaesthetic. However, other treatments, such as chemotherapy, radiation therapy, or immunotherapy, may also be used.

Types of skin cancer claims

Skin cancer claims can range from misdiagnosis claims where a patient was wrongly diagnosed with a different illness, to negligent treatment claims where the prescribed treatment was incorrect or inadequate for the patient’s condition. Regardless of the type of claim, it is essential to establish that the negligence directly caused or contributed to the patient’s harm.

What constitutes medical negligence?

Medical negligence refers to a breach of duty of care by a healthcare professional, which causes harm to a patient. In the context of skin cancer, negligence can occur in various forms – from delayed or incorrect diagnosis to inappropriate or substandard treatment. Such negligence can adversely affect the patient’s health and prognosis.

Making a claim for medical negligence

Bringing a medical negligence claim can be daunting, especially when dealing with a serious condition like skin cancer. However, with the right legal guidance, the process can be managed effectively. The claim process involves establishing the negligence with the help of independent medicolegal experts, determining the extent of harm, and calculating the compensation.

What to expect in a skin cancer compensation claim

Compensation in skin cancer negligence cases can help cover treatment costs, loss of earnings, and other expenses incurred due to the negligence. It can also assist with therapy or counselling required to cope with the emotional distress caused by negligence.

Choosing the right solicitor for your claim

Choosing a solicitor with expertise in medical negligence cases, particularly skin cancer cases, can significantly influence the outcome of your claim. They can provide the necessary legal advice, help gather evidence, and negotiate with the defendant on your behalf.

No win no fee skin cancer claims

Many solicitors offer a ‘no win no fee’ service, which means you only pay a fee if your claim is successful and is often deducted from your compensation. This arrangement, also known as a Conditional Fee Agreement, makes legal support more accessible to those who might otherwise struggle to afford it.

Support for skin cancer patients

Several organisations provide support and resources for skin cancer patients and their families. These include Cancer Research UK, Macmillan Skin Cancer Support, and the NHS Cancer Support Services. These services offer vital help and advice, from understanding your diagnosis and treatment options to coping with the emotional impact of cancer.

How Tees can help

Medical negligence in skin cancer cases can have significant consequences, potentially transforming a treatable condition into a life-threatening one. If you or a loved one have suffered due to such negligence, it’s important to understand your legal rights and consider seeking compensation. With the right legal guidance, you can navigate through this challenging journey and secure the justice and compensation you deserve.

Our No Win, No Fee arrangement ensures you don’t pay any legal or associated costs unless your case 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.

If you have recently been diagnosed with skin cancer, and have concerns about the care provided, please talk to us. Our specialist solicitors will listen and help you find the best way to move forward.