Medical Negligence Law: A Case Study
Neil Austin, Head of our Clinical Negligence Department has received Mrs Moughton’s permission to disclose her name and the details of the tragic and difficult case involving the death of her husband.
Mrs Moughton of Great Yarmouth consulted Neil with regard to her concerns about the medical treatment received by her late husband. Her enquiry was focused on the fact that whilst her husband had successfully fought off cancer and was only waiting for a repair of a hernia from one of his operations, he developed symptoms within the period of the NHS 18 week target for abdominal surgery.
On first impression, it presented as a very difficult case. Whilst Mr Moughton’s death appeared to be particularly tragic, it seemed unlikely that there could be any criticism of the NHS as he was still within the time target for his repair operation. However, Neil decided to assist Mrs Moughton on a ‘No Win No Fee’ Agreement and obtained Mr Moughton’s medical records. Neil was able to refer to his wide network of very experienced Clinical Negligence Barristers, and it was decided to investigate the case on the basis that Mr Moughton may have been considered to be suitable for an earlier operation, rather than having to wait the standard 18 week period.
Neil instructed a suitable independent Medical Expert, who produced a Report that confirmed that whilst there could be no criticism of the hospital involved, there appeared to be failings within the treatment provided by Mr Moughton’s GP surgery. Accordingly, a Letter of Claim was sent to the GP surgery in accordance with the Protocol for the Resolution of Clinical Negligence Disputes.
Although the insurers for the GP surgery formally denied there had been any negligence or that anything could have been done by them which would have avoided Mr Moughton’s death, they at the same time provided a without prejudice offer of financial settlement to Mrs Moughton. If the case had proceeded to a Court Hearing, and a Judgment had been obtained, then there would have been an award of compensation made up of different elements, such as a Statutory Bereavement Award of Damages to Mrs Moughton, funeral expenses, loss of financial dependency, loss of services dependency for the tasks that were in the home and garden that Mr Moughton performed up to his death, and damages for the additional pain and suffering to Mr Moughton from the time that he should have been immediately referred to hospital by the GP to the time of his death.
Important considerations for Mrs Moughton in starting the case were to try to find some clear answers of what went wrong and to receive an apology or some form of acknowledgment of condolence from those considered to be responsible. Having achieved those objectives, she understandably wanted to be able to move forward after the tragic circumstances of her husband’s death, and so decided to accept a fair and reasonable offer of settlement received from the GP surgery insurers. She was very pleased with the outcome.
We are grateful to Mrs Moughton for allowing us to disclose details of her case.