Medical Negligence Archives

Trust failed to advise woman on risks and benefits of vaginal delivery vs. caesarean

Posted on 9 December 202128 March 2025 by Sarah O'Sullivan

Ensuring informed birth choices: The importance of understanding risks.

Childbirth is a significant life event, and while most experiences are positive, complications can arise. Informed decision-making during the antenatal period is crucial to ensure the safety and well-being of both mother and baby.

The need for informed choices

Expectant mothers should receive comprehensive, unbiased information about the potential risks and benefits of various birthing options, including Caesarean sections, vaginal births, and other interventions. This empowers them to make decisions aligned with their individual health needs and preferences.

However, in practice, the risks of vaginal births are often underrepresented compared to those of Caesarean sections. Many women remain unaware that in the UK:

Nearly 40% of women undergo instrumental delivery or Caesarean section.
50% of first-time mothers experience these interventions.
4% of women suffer third or fourth-degree tears, leading to long-term bowel control issues and incontinence.

Lack of comprehensive counseling

At Tees Law, our Medical Negligence team has supported numerous women who faced traumatic childbirth experiences. Despite expressing concerns or requesting a Caesarean section, some were advised against it without a full understanding of the risks of vaginal delivery.

Anna’s story: A preventable trauma

In 2018, Anna (not her real name) suffered a third-degree tear during vaginal birth. Despite having pre-existing bowel difficulties, including slow transit and severe constipation, her concerns about vaginal delivery were repeatedly dismissed. Her visual impairment added to her vulnerability.

Missed opportunities

Throughout her pregnancy, Anna consistently raised concerns:

She was advised to stop taking stimulant laxatives without thorough discussions on alternative options.
Her repeated questions about Caesarean delivery were met with reassurances that vaginal birth was “safest for the baby.”
Risks associated with vaginal delivery were not communicated, despite her history of bowel issues.

When her baby was positioned “back-to-back,” increasing delivery risks, she was still discouraged from a Caesarean.

Traumatic delivery and lasting impact

Anna endured two days of contractions, leading to an instrumental delivery using forceps without an episiotomy. Following the birth, she was informed of her third-degree tear and its consequences, which severely impacted her quality of life.

Despite her long-standing bowel condition, appropriate postnatal care and medication were delayed. She continues to experience bowel urgency, incontinence, and symptoms of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).

The fight for justice

Anna’s experience is not isolated. NICE guidelines state that if a vaginal birth remains unacceptable to a mother after counseling, a Caesarean section should be offered. However, a 2018 Birthrights report revealed that only 26% of Trusts adhered to this best-practice guidance.

At Tees Law, we are committed to holding healthcare providers accountable for failures in maternal care. Our experienced Medical Negligence solicitors support clients in pursuing justice, ensuring their voices are heard and their rights upheld.

Contact us

If you or someone you know has experienced medical negligence during childbirth, our dedicated team is here to help. Reach out to Tees Law today for expert legal support and compassionate guidance.

Woman suffers severe injuries and PTSD after denied caesarean request

Posted on 9 December 202128 March 2025 by Sarah O'Sullivan

Most women who give birth vaginally do so safely and without any long-term health issues. However, according to NHS data, around 4% of women suffer third- or fourth-degree tears during childbirth. In some cases, complications can result in severe and life-changing maternal injuries.

Sadly, Tees Law’s specialist Medical Negligence team knows only too well the devastating impact of such cases. One example is Niamh who experienced a third-degree tear following a vaginal birth. This was despite Niamh having expressed a preference for planned caesarean section. Her claim against Kingston Hospital NHS Foundation Trust is based on breaches of duty before, during and after delivery.

Lack of informed consent

Niamh became pregnant in early 2018.

At 16 weeks, she met with a male registrar and explained that she expected she would need to have a C-section because all the women in her family had given birth that way. In addition to her family history, Niamh’s very slight build further suggested that C-section would be the best method to deliver her baby. Niamh recalls: “the registrar looked me in the eye and said that ‘we would very much support a vaginal birth at this stage’. lt felt to me from the outset like it was going to be a battle to get a c-section and that I was being told that I didn’t need one, despite my family history. To be told so early on that I would need to have a vaginal delivery, made me really anxious.”

Later on at her booking appointment, Niamh also explained her family history of c-sections to the midwife. The midwife referred Niamh to Birth Options to discuss the mode of delivery. There, she was told that a vaginal birth would be much better for the baby. She was also informed that a vaginal birth would allow her to get back to her daily routine sooner. Additionally, she was warned of the risks of having a C-section, including the potential to lose a lot of blood.

Throughout the antenatal process, Niamh repeatedly asked about having a C-section. At 26 weeks, it was noted that she felt “very anxious about [the] birth and uncomfortable within the hospital”. She expressed doubts about her ability to give birth vaginally but was nevertheless encouraged to pursue this route. In the end, based on the medical assurances she had received, Niamh agreed to proceed with a vaginal birth.

An assisted delivery

A week before Niamh went into labour, an ultrasound scan revealed that her baby was back-to-back, a position that increases the risk of complications during delivery. At this point, Niamh asked again if this meant she should have a C-section. She was told that the baby would likely turn around and there would be no problem.

In October 2018, Niamh went into labour spontaneously at 40 weeks. The baby remained back-to-back, and Niamh could not deliver so she was taken to theatre for assisted delivery. A C-section was not offered to Niamh. Instead, the baby was delivered after three pulls of the ventouse and four pulls of the forceps. Her daughter, Darcey, was born safely, but the instrumental delivery caused Niamh to sustain a Grade 3 tear, along with significant and irreparable muscle damage.

Postnatal negligence

Niamh bled heavily for 16 days after giving birth. She suffered faecal urge symptoms and abdominal distension, and her haemoglobin levels fell to 52 grams per litre. On day 5, she was given an X-ray but was refused a CT or MRI scan. The X-ray didn’t reveal anything and despite her symptoms, Niamh was told there was nothing untoward. Niamh pressed for a CT or MRI scan but continued to be refused. Finally on day 9, after having to wait a full weekend and only after continuing to press further, an ultrasound was performed, which failed to detect any medical issue.

Finally, a CT scan was arranged and Niamh was subsequently diagnosed with a pelvic haematoma requiring surgery.

After this, she was unable to pass urine. Several attempts at trial without catheter failed, but instead of being referred to uro-gynaecology, she was discharged with a catheter.

Niamh was in and out of hospital several times during November 2018 to attempt a trial without catheter (TWOC). Eventually, Niamh sought her own private consultant and on the consultant’s medical advice, went back to the NHS to request a suprapubic catheter.

Niamh was re-admitted in late November 2018 and underwent further surgery to insert the suprapubic catheter into her stomach, a procedure which she found extremely distressing.

Niamh’s catheter was not removed until the start of January 2019. During this time, she experienced coccyx, groin and deep pelvic pain, as well as faecal urgency. Since then, Niamh has continued to suffer from psychiatric injury. She has been diagnosed with PTSD and also suffers chronic coccyx pain, which causes her to wake up in pain. She also suffers urgency of continence and has not been able to return to work.

Failures at every stage

There were medical failures at every stage in Niamh’s story. In antenatal meetings, she was not properly counselled as to the pros and cons of C-section compared to vaginal delivery. Having expressed concern regarding the risks of giving birth vaginally, specifically in relation to her family history of C-sections, Niamh was assured that this was the best method of delivery. At no point was she presented with a balanced picture of the benefits and risks of each option. If she had been warned of the risks associated with vaginal delivery, she would have chosen a C-section.

Although she knew there was a small risk she could tear, Niamh was not warned this could lead to difficulties with continence. Moreover, she was warned of the dangers of C-section and the potential disruption this could cause to her recovery, but she was not provided with an equivalent risk assessment of vaginal delivery. For example, she was informed that she could suffer excessive bleeding with a C-section but was never told that this could also happen with a vaginal delivery. Niamh was also not informed about the risk of requiring instrumental assistance.

During labour, there was an opportunity to perform a C-section yet Niamh was not offered the option of a C-section. Furthermore, once assisted delivery with ventouse and forceps had been chosen, there was a failure to manage the delivery in such a way as to avoid the tear.

Finally, Niamh experienced negligent postnatal treatment. There was a delay in escalation, imaging, identification and treatment of the haematoma. Had the haematoma been diagnosed and treated earlier, the extent of the infection would have been less severe. Because of the failure to treat in a timely manner, her episiotomy wound broke down twice and wasn’t able to heal properly which has resulted in the formation of extremely painful scar tissue.

An all-too-common problem

Ultimately, had Niamh been able to go ahead with her preference for a planned C-section, she would have avoided the third-degree tear, haematoma and the rest of the consequences that have resulted from her instrumental delivery. Unfortunately, Niamh is not alone in suffering injury and long-term complications from a vaginal birth that should have been avoided.

Official NICE guidelines state: “For women requesting a caesarean section, if after discussion and offer of support… a vaginal birth is still not an acceptable option [Trusts should] offer a planned caesarean section.” Yet a report by Birthrights in 2018 revealed that only 26% of Trusts offered C-sections in line with NICE best-practice guidance.

Here to help

Our Medical Negligence solicitors are devoted to achieving the justice our clients deserve. If you have been affected by medical negligence, we can support you on your journey to justice, looking out for your needs and priorities every step of the way.

Aortic dissection medical negligence claims

Posted on 18 November 202128 March 2025 by Sarah O'Sullivan

Aortic dissection is a serious condition that can impact at any age.

It is essential that aortic dissection is detected early, as when treated quickly there is a very good chance of survival. Sadly, when delays in diagnosis happen it can lead to catastrophic outcomes.

Jacob Hassan was a father of two, who died after having an aortic dissection aged 62.

Jacob, a keen cyclist who regularly cycled 100 miles a week, had worked as a GP for over 30 years before taking early retirement. He lived in Cambridge with his wife, Sharon, and loved visiting his grandchildren in Indonesia and Australia.

His death followed a trip to A&E after Jacob had experienced intense chest pain. He was discharged with a diagnosis of “non-specific chest pain” without being offered the scan that would have saved his life.

What is aortic dissection?

Aortic dissection occurs when there is a partial tear in the aortic wall. The aorta is the main artery that carries blood away from the heart. If a tear develops, it can allow blood to leak into the aortic lining, which can create a false channel between the inner and outer layers.

Many of the symptoms of aortic dissection are similar to those of other heart problems like heart attacks. Usually, the first sign of an aortic dissection is abrupt and severe chest, back or abdominal pain. The sensation is often described as ripping or tearing.

How is aortic dissection diagnosed?

Aortic dissection is not common and it can also be difficult to diagnose. That’s why it’s so important to have a specialist CT scan. In Jacob’s case, this could have been performed on-site to provide a quick and definitive diagnosis. When diagnosed and treated quickly, the survival rate for aortic dissections is better than 80%.

According to the Aortic Dissection Charitable Trust, however:

33% of sufferers are misdiagnosed
2,000 people die each year from aortic dissection in the UK

Like Jacob, most patients with aortic dissection suffer sudden severe chest pain, which can settle completely after a few hours. Routine tests carried out in the Emergency Department can come back normal. Only a specialist CT aortogram can conclusively say one way or the other whether a patient has an aortic dissection.

Case study of failure to diagnose aortic dissection

Jacob’s story is tragic and his death avoidable.

On a cycle ride from Cambridge, Jacob had to pull over because he was breathless. For an experienced cyclist like Jacob, this was an unusual occurrence. That same evening, he complained of chest pains, telling his wife Sharon to call an ambulance.

By the time he arrived at Addenbrooke’s Hospital’s A&E Department his chest pain was intense. The triage nurse noted the pain was stabbing in nature and radiated to the back – both classic symptoms which should have alerted staff to the need for a CT scan.

Jacob was given painkillers and a chest X-ray but was discharged without being offered a CT scan. A common scenario with aortic dissection is that it can be dismissed because patient doesn’t seem ill enough.

The pain subsided but Jacob continued to lack energy over the next few days. Then, one evening, his wife Sharon returned home to find Jacob collapsed and unresponsive. He died later that night.

Classic signs of aortic dissection missed

The decision to discharge Jacob without offering him a CT scan, despite his unexplained chest pains, was a tragic mistake. According to the coroner, a CT scan would have led to a diagnosis of aortic dissection and saved Jacob’s life.

The Coroner’s Record of Inquest noted that “The presentation of chest pain being severe, sharp, and radiating to his back was indicative of acute aortic syndrome… and should have triggered CT aortography at the hospital which would have confirmed the presence of such a dissection.

“This would have necessitated emergency cardio thoracic surgical intervention and on balance, Jacob would have survived such a procedure.”

Cambridge University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust failed to offer a CT scan and there was also a communication issue with the A&E department not being able to access to the electronic notes of the ambulance crew.

Seeking justice and raising awareness

With the help of Partner Tim Deeming in our medical negligence team, Sharon Hassan is proceeding with her case.

Once the Coroner commenced the inquest investigations, independent experts confirmed Jacob’s death could have been avoided if the cause of severe chest pain had been thoroughly investigated.

Through the case we aim to raise awareness of the effectiveness of CT scans in identifying aortic dissection.

As Sharon said: “Unless the Health Authority has a system to offer a scan to all those presenting with chest pain that cannot be explained by a heart attack, pneumothorax or pulmonary embolism, tragedies will continue” she said. “I just want to ensure no family has to go through what mine has.”

Tim Deeming, Partner acting for the family added: “It’s vital we raise awareness through shared knowledge. As a lawyer supporting families who have had such challenging circumstances, it is through shared experiences we can improve services and learn.”

“It’s about systems and it’s about support… we hope wider training can be provided about Jacob’s circumstances and we want to create a legacy so that CT investigations for aortic dissection are considered basic and fundamental to rule out.”

Medical negligence advice and help

Our medical negligence solicitors are devoted to achieving the support our clients and families need. If you or your family has been affected by potential concerns regarding your medical care, we can support you on your journey.

NHS Litigation Reform: Tees Law submits evidence

Posted on 9 November 202130 March 2025 by Sarah O'Sullivan

In September 2021 the Government’s Health & Social Care Committee launched a new inquiry to examine the case for the reform of NHS litigation.

Our Tier 1 Medical Negligence team represents patients who have suffered avoidable harm as a result of medical accidents. The team, led by Executive Partner Janine Collier, has extensive lived experience of NHS Litigation and is passionate about improving patient safety and giving clients a voice.

Janine and her team have put forward their evidence to the inquiry as they have significant concerns and wish to ensure that patients who have suffered avoidable harm whilst under the care of the NHS are appropriately represented, their voices heard and that access to justice is not compromised.

A need to focus on culture, not costs

The NHS is the largest employer in the UK and one of the largest employers in the world. The cost of NHS litigation must be seen in this context.

Over the past four years, total payments and administration costs under NHS Resolution clinical schemes have remained steady at between roughly 1.5% and 1.6% of the total NHS budget. This is a very low percentage compared to other organisations, where indemnity costs range from 1% to 15%, with almost all over 2%.

The main way to reduce cost – both human and financial – is to reduce avoidable harm.

There is evidence of a “defensive culture”, “dysfunctional teams” and “safety lessons not learned” across the NHS and until this is addressed, lessons will not be learned, change will not be implemented, errors will continue to be not just made, but repeated. The H&SC Committee’s own report into Maternity Safety published in July identifies a culture of blame within NHS Trusts.

Our medical negligence team’s view is that it is morally unacceptable to look to introduce any kind of legal reform which impedes access to justice or appropriate compensation for those who have been injured at the hands of the NHS through no fault of their own. This includes, but is not limited to, a possible introduction of fixed recoverable costs, which would have a disproportionate effect on the most vulnerable in our society.

The full version of our evidence to the inquiry can be viewed here. The outcome of the inquiry is expected in 2022.

Inquest exposes continuing and dangerous risk of restricted items on mental health wards

Posted on 21 September 202130 March 2025 by Sarah O'Sullivan

A jury at Suffolk Coroner’s Court in Ipswich has delivered its conclusion in the tragic case of a Newmarket man who died while under in-patient care at a specialist mental health unit in West Suffolk. The six-day hearing followed a pre-inquest review last March.

HM Senior Coroner for Suffolk, Nigel Parsley, led the investigation into Joshua’s death on 9 September 2019. At the lengthy inquest, the jury concluded that 25-year-old Joshua Sahota died at Wedgwood House mental health unit in Bury St Edmunds as a result of asphyxia by deliberately placing a plastic bag over his head and using a bed sheet around his neck.

Lack of adequate risk assessment

The inquest heard that Joshua was a quiet young man who kept to himself. Staff only got to know him superficially, which limited their ability to assess the risk he posed to himself. Despite being classified as a high suicide risk throughout his admission, no effective measures were implemented to ensure his safety.

Joshua had previously attempted suicide by deliberately driving a car off a bridge onto the A14 near Newmarket. The jury was unable to determine his state of mind at the time of his death but highlighted several contributing factors including:

Insufficient staffing
Inadequate observations and 1-to-1 supervision
Poor documentation
Lack of access to a psychologist
Unclear restricted items policy

Prevention of future deaths report issued

The coroner has raised a ‘Prevention of Future Deaths Report’ not only with the Trust but also directly with the Minister for Mental Health and Patient Safety. This rare step underscores the severity of the restricted items issue at a national level.

Joshua’s admission to wedgwood house

Joshua was admitted to Wedgwood House, located at the West Suffolk Hospital site in Bury St Edmunds. Although the hospital site is under West Suffolk Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Wedgwood House is managed by the Norfolk and Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust.

The Trust was previously rated as inadequate and placed under special measures in 2017 following a Care Quality Commission (CQC) review. Since November 2018, the Trust has faced 21 Mental Health Act monitoring visits, resulting in 96 required actions.

Unclear policies and inadequate staffing

The inquest exposed that the NHS Trust had no clear local policy regarding the possession of plastic bags, belts, shoelaces, and similar items on the mental health ward. Staff members followed inconsistent practices, leading to uncertainty around which items were permitted.

Additionally, the unit’s care plan for Joshua was deemed inadequate. On the day of his death, the ward was short-staffed, with only three members present instead of the required six. Staff also failed to conduct proper hourly observations, with no adequate observation of Joshua between 3:05 pm and 5:15 pm when he was found unresponsive.

Investigation findings highlight systemic issues

The Trust’s internal investigation further revealed serious shortcomings, including:

Lack of detailed risk assessments
Absence of professional curiosity
Inadequate psychological support due to a long-term shortage of staff
Poor holistic psychosocial assessment of Joshua
Risk management that failed to meet his needs

Confusion over restricted items was evident, with most staff believing plastic bags were not permitted. Despite discussions at a Trust patient safety meeting in October 2017 regarding plastic bags, no subsequent action was recorded.

Family response and call for improvements

Tees Law, representing Joshua’s family, stated that the inquest findings reflect concerns previously raised by Joshua’s father, Malkeet Sahota. These concerns were further exacerbated upon learning of other deaths at Wedgwood House in recent years.

“Joshua’s dad, Malk, and the family are incredibly grateful to the jury for their diligent and thoughtful conclusion, having heard detailed evidence over several days from numerous witnesses. Seeing that the jury recognised Joshua as an intelligent, polite, and well-loved young man is heartening.”

Malkeet Sahota has expressed a strong desire for systemic improvements in mental health care. He welcomed the coroner’s decision to raise a Prevention of Future Deaths Report to the Minister for Mental Health and Patient Safety, particularly regarding the communication of restricted item policies to families and visitors.

“The fact that the Coroner has raised concerns on a national level about restricted items on mental health wards and the importance of communicating these issues with families shows just how vital inquests like Joshua’s are,” Tees Law concluded.

Delayed diagnosis and the role of X-rays, CT scans and MRI scans in medical negligence claims

Posted on 6 August 202124 March 2025 by Sarah O'Sullivan

Radiology, including X-rays, CT scans and MRI scans, is a routine part of healthcare used to identify problems, guide treatment and exclude potential diagnoses. Failures in radiology services can unfortunately lead to failures in identifying potential abnormalities and delayed or misdiagnosis.

Our medical negligence solicitors are experts at dealing with claims resulting from delayed diagnosis, failure to diagnose and misdiagnosis. The team also handles cases involving failures to identify or report on suspicious or abnormal features following an X-ray, CT scan or MRI scan, and failure to make appropriate recommendations for referral.

Sadly, we are seeing a rise in delayed radiology cases as a direct result of the ongoing pressure on the NHS and some underlying factors impacting the delivery of imaging services, resulting in life-changing consequences for patients and their families.

How do delays to scans occur?

When a patient is referred for an x-ray, MRI or CT scan there should be a set time frame within which this is carried out, depending on the reason for the referral. Unfortunately delays in referrals and failings in communication between different departments and health providers can mean that these targets are not met, leaving the patient with a potentially delayed diagnosis.

Once the imaging is undertaken it is then reviewed by the relevant clinician, and a report is prepared. Where possible, images should be compared to any previous order to highlight developments and changes over time, although a clinician’s ability to do this is reliant upon previous imaging being available to them at the right time.

Claims resulting from the failure to identify suspicious features leading to delays in diagnosis of health issues such as cancer have devastating consequences and in some cases have led to the avoidable death of a patient.

Once the scans have been reviewed, any abnormal findings should then lead to referral to further investigation or treatment. Again, delay at this point is a frequent and potentially significant problem, as miscommunications between departments and systems or flagging errors occur due to many different factors.

What is the impact of delayed diagnosis following a scan?

Delays in diagnosis as a result of poor radiology practices can be devastating particularly in cases where patients are suffering from conditions or diseases where timely diagnosis and treatment is of paramount importance, such as cancers or acute respiratory events.

It is not unusual for there to be a number of errors throughout the process, each representing a missed opportunity for earlier diagnosis and treatment, which can ultimately lead to lengthy delays in diagnosis and treatment.

Our medical negligence team has recently dealt with cases involving:

A 7 – 22 month delayed diagnosis of lung cancer following a failure to arrange correct imaging in November 2018 and to follow up abnormalities identified on imaging in March 2019 and February 2020. Diagnosis was not made until September 2020.
Incorrectly reported ultrasound undertaken by an outsourced radiology provider in November 2018, as a result of which the patient suffered a delay in diagnosis of colorectal cancer between approximately November 2018- May 2019 which impacted upon her treatment options and life expectancy.
Failure to identify a lung lesion as suspicious for malignancy on a CT scan and negligently reporting the lesion as a benign pleural cyst. The scan was undertaken at an NHS hospital but the reporting was outsourced to an outside company. As a result, the patient suffered a delay in diagnosis of around 11 months leading to the progression of his disease and denying him the opportunity for curative treatment- ultimately his death could have been avoided.
Failure to identify an abnormality on a chest X-ray and to refer for further investigation. As a result the patient suffered a delay in diagnosis of lung cancer of around 8 months, leading to a loss of life expectancy of around 10 years.
Failure to report a hepatic flexure tumour on CT scans in both June and November 2018. Potentially a further failure to miss an abnormality in November 2017. As a result, our client had a delay in diagnosis of colorectal cancer for 16 months, potentially 24 months.
Failure to refer for appropriate follow up after identifying a vestibular schwannoma (auditory benign tumour) leading to a delay in informing our client of this finding and putting a treatment plan in place of 21 months. As a result of this delay, the tumour grew and our client developed hydrocephalus with associated balance, continence and cognitive symptoms, required admission to hospital for around a month, developed permanent facial palsy with associated visual, cosmetic and speech issues, required shunt insertion surgery and was unable to undergo standard radiotherapy treatment.

What are the factors leading to medical negligence claims relating to radiology?

a concerning shortage of radiologists in the United Kingdom. With radiology services often stretched and under pressure to achieve quotas and targets, the risk of human error increases
systems errors and poor referral methods. Different hospitals, health centres and departments frequently use different systems and referral pathways, making delays and missed requests more likely
outsourcing of radiology. Due to the lack of radiologists a number of NHS Trusts have begun to send imaging to external companies for review, some of which are outside of the UK. Issues in reporting standards in outsourced reports seem to be increasing, and there are additional problems in ensuring the external radiologist is provided with the correct supporting medical records and previous imaging
lack of correct equipment, equipment errors or cost constraints on how many patients may be referred for imaging

A recent report by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) has shown recurrent failings in the way radiology is reported on and followed up across NHS services, and the PHSO has written to the Government recommending urgent improvement to NHS imaging services be implemented as a priority.

Some important things to consider if you require radiology services

It can be difficult for patients to avoid errors as predominantly it is the reporting of the radiology which is the issue, however there are some practical tips to consider if you find you require radiology:

If referred for radiology ask what the timeframe for this should be and which hospital and department the referral will be made to
Re-iterate your symptoms to the clinician carrying out the imaging, and let them know if anything has changed since your referral
When discussing the results with your clinician, ask whether there were comparisons to any previous imaging or any ambiguous findings
If you are concerned that there has been an error in the reporting of your imaging flag this to the clinician and ask for an immediate review
If you are referred for further investigation or treatment following radiology check what the timeframe for this should be, when you should hear further, whether you need to make an appointment yourself, and who the referral will be made to

Here at Tees we are experienced in dealing with a range of claims relating to issues in radiology, and work with a number of eminent independent experts to ensure that no stone is left unturned in investigating the standard of care provided.

If you are concerned that there were failings in your care or potential delays to your treatment as a result of issues or errors in radiology we work on a no-win, no-fee basis, and would be happy to discuss your experience. We’re here to help.

Medical Negligence: Plastic surgery claims

Posted on 6 July 202124 March 2025 by Sarah O'Sullivan

Figures suggest that plastic surgery procedures are starting to become popular again, as more people opt to go under the knife. Sarah Stocker, Solicitor in Tees’ medical negligence team in Cambridge, examines the plastic surgery landscape.

If your plastic surgery doesn’t go as planned, you may have options to seek compensation. Many claims arise when doctors fail to adequately inform patients of the risks and potential complications of their procedures. Without this information, you cannot give proper informed consent.

Understanding informed consent

Since June 2016, the surgeon performing your procedure must personally explain the risks and complications to you. This ensures you provide informed consent. Before 2016, other medical staff could handle this discussion, but you should still have been informed of all risks and signed a consent form.

Post-surgery care and support

Even if your surgery is successful, issues can arise during recovery. You should receive appropriate aftercare, including any necessary medication before discharge. Additionally, you must be provided with contact details for your surgeon or a suitably qualified professional for any complications that occur outside of regular hours.

When can you make a compensation claim?

You may be entitled to make a claim if:

You weren’t given sufficient information about the risks and complications, preventing you from giving informed consent.
Your surgery didn’t meet the expected standards, resulting in ongoing pain, scarring, or asymmetry.
An unqualified individual performed your procedure.
A defective product, like a faulty implant, was used.
You received inadequate aftercare, including missing follow-up appointments, incorrect medication, or delayed treatment for infections.

Trends in plastic surgery

The plastic surgery industry peaked in 2015, valued at approximately £3.6 billion, with 51,140 procedures performed in the UK. However, data from the British Association of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons (BAAPS) showed a 40% decrease in surgeries in 2016.

Several factors contributed to this decline. Societal attitudes shifted towards embracing natural beauty, amplified by the rise of social media influencers and campaigns featuring diverse body types. Additionally, financial uncertainty led people to be more cautious about spending on elective procedures.

Changes in cosmetic surgery regulations

To improve patient safety and address unethical practices, new guidelines were introduced in June 2016. These rules aim to prevent rogue practitioners from prioritizing profits over patient welfare. Although most procedures are safe, every surgery carries some level of risk.

Risks of plastic surgery

The Royal College of Surgeons defines cosmetic surgery as any invasive procedure performed to alter a person’s appearance for non-medical reasons. Women account for 91% of all cosmetic surgeries. The most common procedures include:

Breast augmentation and reduction
Eyelid surgery
Face lifts and neck lifts
Liposuction
Rhinoplasty (nose jobs)

Among men, rhinoplasty remains the most popular choice.

The General Medical Council (GMC) has made it clear that doctors performing cosmetic procedures must:

Avoid making misleading or exaggerated claims about the procedure.
Provide realistic information about the risks involved.
Refrain from using unethical promotional tactics, such as special offers or competitions that trivialize the decision.

Surgeons must market their services responsibly, ensuring all advertising is factual and transparent.

Things to consider before surgery

Before proceeding with cosmetic surgery, it’s essential to have realistic expectations about the results and the psychological impact of undergoing an invasive procedure.

Key considerations include:

Avoid promises of perfection: A reputable surgeon will not guarantee life-changing results.
No pressure: You should never feel rushed or coerced into making a decision.
Meet your surgeon: Before your surgery, meet the surgeon who will perform the procedure. They should be fully insured and certified in their area of practice.
Check qualifications: Following the 2016 guidelines, surgeons must be on the GMC Specialist Register in a relevant specialty. You can verify their credentials on the GMC website.

The future of plastic surgery

In June 2017, further proposals were introduced to enhance patient protection. These changes would allow patients to confirm if their surgeon has the necessary qualifications through the public medical register.

Currently, any doctor can legally perform cosmetic surgery without formal training. The proposed system would clearly indicate which doctors hold a Royal College of Surgeons certificate in cosmetic surgery.

There have also been calls to ban cosmetic procedures for under-18s after reports emerged of young children being targeted by cosmetic surgery apps. These apps have been criticised for promoting invasive procedures to impressionable young audiences.

Need legal support?

If you have experienced complications before, during, or after cosmetic surgery, contact us today to discuss your options.

Inquest concludes after Suffolk postmaster’s tragic hospital death

Posted on 16 June 202130 March 2025 by Sarah O'Sullivan

An inquest at Suffolk Coroner’s Court in Ipswich, conducted by Mrs. Catherine Wood, has heard evidence regarding care and service delivery issues while investigating the tragic hospital death of a 73-year-old man who had been admitted for treatment of a fractured hip.

Background

The patient, Barry Jefferson, had worked for many years alongside his wife Sarah at their Post Office Stores business in Thurston, near Bury St Edmunds. They were close to finalising plans to sell up and spend more time with family, including their young grandchildren.

On 17 August 2020, Barry tripped at home and fractured his right hip, which had previously been replaced. After relatively straightforward surgery was performed on the periprosthetic fracture at West Suffolk Hospital on 20 August, he was slowly recovering in the orthopaedic ward and appeared to be doing well.

Bloating and swollen abdomen

Placed in a side room due to a positive MRSA test, by 27 August Barry was unwell with nausea and vomiting. During the August Bank Holiday weekend, he told nurses he felt bloated and had a swollen abdomen. The nursing team consulted doctors on call, who prescribed medication for bloating.

Over the course of the bank holiday weekend, Barry became increasingly unwell. Despite repeated escalation from the nursing staff, he was only reviewed by very junior doctors, going five days without review or input from senior clinicians. In addition, following clinical reviews, documentation was often poor or missing, and there appeared to be a lack of understanding of the changing clinical picture.

On Tuesday 1 September, a review by the advanced nurse practitioner pointed to a possible infection, source unknown. At this stage, Barry had not been reviewed by a senior clinician since before the weekend, and there had been no proper investigations into his abdominal distension. Antibiotics and fluids were administered intravenously, but Barry became more unwell overnight and began vomiting.

A consultant conducted a further review in the afternoon and, suspecting a possible bowel obstruction, ordered nil by mouth and an abdominal X-ray. The X-ray that afternoon showed distended loops of small bowel consistent with an obstruction.

Following the X-ray and referral to the surgical team, Barry suffered further deterioration, and an emergency call was activated. Probable irreversible organ failure was suspected when he did not respond to resuscitation treatment by the emergency team. Sadly, he died a short time later.

Care and service delivery issues

Following Barry Jefferson’s death on 2 September, ultimately due to cardiac arrest, a Serious Incident Report was completed by West Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust. This identified a number of care and service delivery issues and pointed to several root causes.

“The report highlighted a series of delays in recognising deterioration in Barry’s condition during that fateful bank holiday weekend and tardiness in seeking senior reviews and investigations,” explains Tees Law, acting for widowed Sarah Jefferson.

“A more timely response earlier in the weekend might have led to a different outcome in this case. Establishing why things went so badly awry has not been helped by a repeated lack of documentation by the junior doctors who reviewed Barry, it being recorded during the inquest that the documentation fell far below what would have been expected from a junior doctor.

“Review by a senior clinician should have occurred sooner, with particular emphasis over the bank holiday weekend. This could have led to an urgent surgical review, with investigations such as the abdominal X-ray and nasogastric tube insertion occurring sooner.

The inquest heard from a senior member of the Hospital Trust who confirmed that the Trust had found that a lack of appropriate senior review over the Bank Holiday weekend led to a failure to recognise Barry’s deterioration, late investigation, and late treatment.

There was further found to be an inconsistent approach to the handover of patients out of hours, leading to poor communication between teams, failure to review or monitor for deterioration, and delay in escalation of a sick patient. The lack of a Sick List meant that patients who required close monitoring were not routinely monitored or reviewed.

Measures implemented

Following the Trust’s internal review, a number of measures have now been put in place, including a revised handover within the surgical division, use of a Sick List during handovers for general surgery and orthopaedic teams, development of a Standard Operating Procedure for a revised handover process, as well as shared learning in respect of escalation of patients and the importance of documentation to junior doctors.

A second ortho-geriatrician to the surgical division is also being recruited to work towards the Trust’s goal of every orthopaedic patient receiving a review by a senior doctor Monday to Friday, with senior surgical review out of hours as needed.

“Sarah Jefferson is grateful to the Coroner for the thorough investigation into Barry’s death. Hopefully, following the Hospital Trust’s findings and the measures that have been implemented since Barry’s death, the incidence of failures to escalate the response to clearly deteriorating patients will have been greatly reduced.”

Pressure sores claims: Medical negligence

Posted on 5 May 202124 March 2025 by Sarah O'Sullivan

In the UK, patients in hospital and those living in care homes, benefit from a high standard of nursing and health care. However, despite progress in the management of pressure sores it remains a sombre fact that medical negligence claims are far from uncommon.

In this article Sarah Stocker, Associate Solicitor in Tees’ medical negligence team, explores what pressure sores are; the causes; what steps healthcare professionals should take to minimise the risk of one developing and how you can claim for compensation following the development of a pressure sore or poor management of one.

What is a coroner’s inquest?

A coroner’s inquest is a formal investigation into a death. It is held in specific circumstances, including when:

The cause of death is unknown.
The death was violent or unnatural.
The deceased was in custody, state detention, or detained under the Mental Health Act.
The death occurred as a result of a medical procedure/treatment.

Inquests are not designed to assign blame or responsibility but rather to determine the identity of the deceased, as well as when, where, and how they died.

What is an Article 2 inquest?

An Article 2 inquest is a more in-depth investigation held when the state may have failed to protect someone’s life. These inquests often involve deaths in custody, psychiatric hospitals, or other situations where the state played a role.

Prevention of future death reports

Following an inquest, a coroner can issue a Prevention of Future Death Report (PFD) if they identify risks that could lead to further deaths. These reports are sent to relevant organisations or individuals, recommending changes to prevent similar incidents.

Understanding the role of a coroner

A coroner is an independent judicial officer with legal qualifications and significant experience. Their role is to investigate sudden, unexplained, or unnatural deaths. Coroners can request post-mortems, gather evidence, and conduct inquests to establish the facts of a death.

Post-mortems: What to expect

A post-mortem, also known as an autopsy, is conducted by a pathologist to determine the cause of death. While the coroner decides if a post-mortem is necessary, they must consider the family’s views and any cultural or religious beliefs. Families can request a copy of the post-mortem report, though it may only be released after the inquest.

When will the inquest take place?

Inquests are typically held within 6-9 months of a death. During this period, the coroner will:

Gather evidence, including medical records and witness statements.
Contact the family to explain the process.
Potentially hold a pre-inquest review to organise evidence and identify issues.
Issue an interim death certificate to allow families to manage practical matters.

What happens during the inquest?

The inquest is a public hearing where evidence is presented to establish the facts of the death. Key participants include:

Witnesses, including doctors, police officers, or medical experts.
Family members, who may provide personal testimony.
Legal representatives, especially in cases involving state bodies.

The coroner may also call for independent expert opinions to ensure a complete understanding of the circumstances.

Conclusion of the inquest

At the end of an inquest, the coroner or jury will deliver a conclusion that falls under one of several categories, including:

Natural causes
Suicide
Accident or misadventure
Unlawful or lawful killing
Industrial disease
Stillbirth

In some cases, a narrative conclusion is given, providing a detailed account of the circumstances surrounding the death.

Legal representation at an inquest

Having legal representation can be invaluable, particularly if there are concerns about the care a loved one received. Our experienced solicitors can help ensure that the right questions are asked, and all relevant evidence is considered.

State bodies are often represented by legal professionals, so having your own solicitor can help provide a balanced and thorough investigation.

Tees sweeps two awards

Posted on 4 May 202130 March 2025 by Sarah O'Sullivan

Tees celebrates double success at Cambridgeshire Law Society Excellence Awards

Tees, the local law firm with offices in Cambridge, Bishop’s Stortford, Royston, Saffron Walden, Brentwood, and Chelmsford, celebrated a double success by winning both the Excellence in Technology and Innovation Award and the Residential Property Team of the Year Award at the Cambridgeshire Law Society Excellence Awards. The awards ceremony was held on Zoom on Friday, 23rd April 2021.

Tees also received a Highly Commended award for Injury Litigation Team of the Year, and Private Client Associate Chris Claxton-Shirley was also Highly Commended as a Rising Star.

Celebrating legal excellence

The Excellence Awards celebrate the legal community of Cambridge across various categories, with winners chosen based on criteria such as excellent client service, technical capabilities, and response to the challenges posed by Covid-19.

Prominent attendees included Stephanie Boyce, President of the Law Society of England and Wales; The Rt Hon Lucy Frazer QC MP, Solicitor General; and Elizabeth Rimmer, CEO of LawWorks, which served as the Charity Partner. The awards ceremony was sponsored by Rathbones Investment Management. The Judging Panel was chaired by Ian Mather and included representatives from Rathbones Investment Management, AstraZeneca, Handelsbanken, Barclays Corporate, and FRP Advisory.

Excellence in technology and innovation award

Clare Pilsworth, Family Partner and newly appointed Head of Tees’ Cambridge office, accepted the Excellence in Technology and Innovation Award.

She said:

“Tees has been investing heavily in technology long before the pandemic hit, and we have continued that investment throughout the past year. Winning this award is a testament to the decisions we’ve made as a firm to be at the forefront of innovation and technology in the region. It also reflects the hard work of our IT team in implementation, integration, and training, enabling our solicitors to provide a seamless client experience.”

Residential property team of the year award

Julia Turner, Senior Associate and Head of the Cambridge Residential Conveyancing Team, expressed her gratitude upon receiving the Residential Property Team of the Year Award.

She said:

“This award means so much to the team. We have worked through unprecedented times, delivering a high quality of service. Our demand has grown substantially, and our success is thanks to the consistent hard work of our team.”

Highly commended injury litigation team

The Legal 500 Tier 1 Injury Litigation Team, led by Partner Janine Collier, was Highly Commended for their outstanding work. Tees provides a wide range of services, including personal injury, medical negligence, and inquest representation, securing settlements from modest to multi-million-pound amounts.

Janine said:

“A personal, tailored client experience is at the heart of our service. Each Tees lawyer has fewer cases than other injury practitioners so that they can truly understand the client’s needs and help them to a better future.”

Rising star recognition

Chris Claxton-Shirley received a Highly Commended in the Rising Star category. He shared his pride in his contributions to the firm and the community.

He said:

“I am proud of the contribution I make to Tees, our local community, and the wider profession. I am excited about what the future holds.”

Reflections from the group managing director

Ashton Hunt, Group Managing Director of Tees, expressed his pride in the firm’s achievements:

“Tees has made significant investments in technology over the past eight to ten years, enabling us to successfully navigate the pandemic while continuing to deliver excellent service for our clients. Continuing to invest in the best technology to support our people remains part of our core strategy, and I am truly delighted that the firm’s efforts have been recognised in this way.”