Medical Negligence Claims

Doctors and other Medical Professionals can and do make mistakes.

Where those mistakes arise out of the failure to exercise reasonable skill and care compensation may be payable.

Damages for medical negligence can run into millions of pounds.

The effects of medical negligence can range from short-term minor problems to those that are catastrophic or life-ending.

As this is a complex area of law you need the best advice to ensure that you have the best opportunity of obtaining compensation; Medical Professionals retain lawyers experienced in such claims and so should you.

We deal with claims of all sizes, both large and small and have an established record in recovering substantial damages.

Awards include those listed below.

We have a Legal Services Commission Clinical Negligence Franchise for the Public Funding of claims that meet the LSC criteria for funding.

We also do claims funded by or through Legal Expense Insurance. Sometimes cases are taken on under Conditional Fee Agreements (commonly known as a CFA or "no win, no fee" Agreement).

We have extensive contacts with experts and barristers to ensure that both the chances of your claim succeeding, and the award itself are maximised.

At The Roland Partnership we have a team of Medical Negligence Solicitors who specialise in Medical Negligence Law.

It is important that you choose the right Solicitor for your case; contact us now.

Sample Awards

£2.1 million for Cerebral Palsy arising out of failure to deliver a baby promptly.: Alleged failure to recognise various causes for concern for the condition of the baby during delivery and allowing the delivery to go on for too long before further delays in a delivery by Caesarean Section.; The Claimant was born in 1973 but the claim was not started until 1992.

£1.5 million for losses resulting from substandard Obstetric treatment.: A mother suffered internal bleeding whilst undergoing a hysterectomy but the doctors failed to act upon the signs of that and delayed in transfusing her with blood.; When the blood did come it had been mismatched so that the wrong blood group type arrived.; She suffered brain damage including damage to her sight.

£750,000 for losses resulting from substandard Accident & Emergency treatment.: A pedestrian was struck by a car and rendered unconscious and taken to Hospital.; The Claimant had no recollection of the road traffic accident, was sleepy, gave an incorrect date of birth and was very confused.; A nurse told the Claimant's wife that the Claimant had a thumping headache was drunk and vomiting and sleeping it off.; Later the Claimant had a fit with a CT scan showing an injury consisting of a bleed in the brain.; It was the Claimant's case that the injury caused by the car had caused no lasting problems and that the bleed had formed a substantial time before the scan with his fit that evening and his injuries being the result of the Defendant Hospital's failure to diagnose and treat him properly.; The Claimant's injuries included blindness, headaches, dizziness, weakness on the left side, loss of balance, poor concentration, memory and personality change and his injuries led to the breakdown of his marriage.

£450,000 regarding substandard Obstetric treatment resulting in losses including a personality change due to brain damage.: It was alleged that during a laparoscopic sterilisation Hospital staff had failed to ensure that a needle tip was not sticking into any organ before passing carbon dioxide through it and that as a result a bubble of carbon dioxide had entered the Claimant's circulation causing brain damage.; On discharge home her brain function was far from normal; she was forgetful and incapable of looking after her home and her family.; Her personality changed so that she became less responsible and involved in criminal activities.

£438,750 regarding substandard Obstetric treatment resulting in losses including a permanent visual loss.: The Claimant suffered internal bleeding during a hysterectomy but a delay in the necessary treatment for 10 hours caused her brain damage including damage to the posterior optic pathways.; Liability was disputed and the claim settled on a 75/25 basis.

£255,000 regarding substandard Psychiatric treatment resulting in suicide.: The Deceased was admitted to Hospital suffering from a state of agitated depression, and with a recent history of suicidal behaviour.; He was detained under the Mental Health Act and maintained under continuous nursing observation from the time of admission until the following morning when this was reduced to a lower level of observation.; Within 2 hours he was found dead having hanged himself in a shower cubicle.; The Claimants maintained that his death would have been averted if the nursing team had adequately observed him and had he been kept in a safe environment.; The Defendants admitted liability but disputed the value of the claim.

£80,000 regarding substandard Obstetric treatment resulting in Erb's palsy which affected the client's left shoulder and arm: In 1987 a mother was admitted to Hospital for the delivery of her daughter, the Claimant and the labour was managed by the Hospital's midwives.; There were difficulties with the delivery and it was the Claimant's case that that was because her right shoulder was stuck.; The delivery was performed by two midwives who delivered the Claimant by each pulling on the Claimant's arms and shoulders.; In the course of doing so, the Claimant's mother was pulled down the bed a distance of about 18 inches.; She was then held by her husband to prevent her from moving further whilst the midwives continued to apply traction to deliver the Claimant.; When the Claimant was born it was noted that her left arm was limp and a diagnosis of left Erb's Palsy was made.; Liability was denied.

£43,000 regarding substandard GP treatment in failing to diagnose and treat a slipped epiphysis.: The Claimant, a 13 year old girl developed pain in her left hip and leg and as the condition did not improve, she was seen and examined by her GP.; The GP diagnosed a bad groin strain, prescribed Ibuprofen and advised that if the Claimant's symptoms persisted, she should make a further appointment.; The Claimant's symptoms deteriorated so that she required assistance up and down stairs and into bed and a further appointment was made for her to see the GP.; At that appointment she again indicated that she was suffering from pain in her left hip and groin area and felt a "clicking sensation" in the area of the hip.; The Defendant examined her and again diagnosed a very bad groin strain, indicated that recovery might be prolonged and suggested that she might need physiotherapy; further pain killers were prescribed. The GP stated that there was no necessity for X-ray examination because only the muscles in the area were effected.; The Claimant's condition thereafter deteriorated to such an extent that she required a walking stick and a further appointment was arranged with the Defendant's practice when she saw a different doctor.; That doctor arranged physiotherapy, when it was decided that an X-ray examination was required, the results of which revealed a slipped upper femoral epiphysis with significant varus deformity.; The Claimant later underwent a realignment osteotomy, leaving her with a significant cosmetic deformity and significant shortening of the leg with an increased risk of osteoarthritis.; A partial admission of liability was made.

£10,000 regarding substandard Orthopaedic treatment to the client's knee: The Claimant suffered a fall and underwent investigations but later recovered to the extent that he was able to lead a normal life and play many sports on a frequent basis.; He was later referred to the Defendant Surgeon for investigation of his knee; the Claimant's concern was that his knee had an odd appearance and seemed to move in and out of joint.; The Defendant examined and investigated the Claimant's right knee and concluded that the Claimant had an isolated posterior cruciate ligament injury.; The Defendant recommended and the Claimant later underwent a reconstruction of his right knee.; In the course of the discussion, the Defendant did not tell the Claimant that he would not be able to play sports after the operation.; The Claimant maintained that that the Defendant was negligent in relation to both his pre-operative advice and the manner in which he had performed the operation.

£6,000 regarding substandard Hospital care in several disciplines: It was alleged that various failures to treat the patient properly contributed to the development of malnutrition, pressure sores and a subsequent terminal chest infection.

£4,000 regarding substandard Microbiological and Physician treatment of MRSA /Septicaemia/Chest Condition.: It was the Claimant's case that the Defendant Hospital was negligent in relation to the diagnosis and management of the Patient's chest condition, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease and Bronchiectasis, his infection with and the management of his MRSA Septicaemia; other matters including a failure to properly control his persisting atrial fibrillation, for transferring him back to a Community Hospital when he was not fit to be transferred, for failing to check that the antibiotics prescribed were available at such Community Hospital, and for seeking to make him "comfortable as dying" without having considered all reasonable treatments.; Liability and Causation were disputed.

£2,000 regarding substandard ENT treatment of a perforated septum.: The Claimant sustained injuries in a road traffic accident and underwent surgery to his nose.; During the course of the operation he suffered a septal perforation but its significance was not explained to him.; Later he was reassured that the perforation would be repaired when his nose was ready for surgery and he was told that if a prescribed course of drops did not work then he would have an operation to rebuild his nose.; Later however he was advised that the perforation was so large as to be beyond repair and that there was nothing that could be done to repair his nose.; A Consultant ENT Surgeon reported that although the perforation was not in itself evidence of sub-standard care, the failure to monitor and advise the Claimant and consider treatment for the perforation in the years following the surgery fell below an acceptable standard of care.; The case settled shortly before the Court was to decide whether or not the claim had been brought too late by the Claimant.