|
William, a 49-year old man, fell late on the evening of
8 March 2000, sustaining a closed fracture of his right leg.
He was taken to UCH, a hospital near to where the accident
had occurred. He was first seen by a doctor in the early hours
of the morning of 9 March 2000. An attempt was made by a nurse
to transfer William on to a trolley. During this attempt William
fell to the floor. Shortly after, an x-ray was performed on
his right leg. William was then admitted to a ward at around
midday the following day.
Further treatment did not occur until 13 March 2000. There
was some dispute between the parties as to whether this was
because of neglect by UCH or because William's leg was so
swollen that surgery could not be performed. On 13 March 2000,
a metal pin was inserted into William's leg. This pin had
to be removed on 15 March 2000 as it caused irritation to
the nerve and soft tissues surrounding it. On 17 March 2000
further surgery was performed where a tourniquet was put in
place and some fixation of the fracture was achieved by use
of a buttress plate. However, owing to severe swelling the
wound could not be closed following surgery. There was a dispute
as to whether the leg had been swollen at the outset of surgery,
or whether swelling had occurred during surgery.
By 19 March 2000 it had become clear that William's leg had
become infected. On 20 March 2000 the wound was closed in
theatre. The infection persisted and on 22 March 2000 microbiology
revealed MRSA in the blood and the surgical wound. Between
23 March 2000 and 5 May 2000 William remained as an inpatient
before being discharged on 5 May 2000.
William continued to feel unwell and on 8 May 2000 swabs of
his right leg were taken by a district nurse. These revealed
that he was still infected with MRSA. On 14 May 2000 William
was admitted to a different hospital, where emergency surgery
was performed to remove the metal work and dead bone. Further
treatment was administered at yet another hospital, but unfortunately
the treatment was unable to prevent a right above knee amputation
being required in November 2003.
William was left largely wheelchair bound. A prosthetic limb
was considered, though there was a difference in opinion between
experts as to whether it would serve a practical purpose.
William's wife provided for much of his care needs which were,
as a result of his severely restricted mobility, somewhat
extensive. William also suffered from depression as a result
of his condition and the subsequent stress of litigation.
Legal Proceedings
William instructed solicitors to investigate his claim against
UCH and in July 2003 his case was transferred to Charles Russell.
Chronology of Case
The Claim Form was issued on 4 March 2003 by William's previous
solicitors. By Order dated 9 June 2004 proceedings were stayed
to allow the parties to follow the pre-action protocol. Particulars
of Claim were served on 12 September 2003.
Defence was served 10 November 2003. Liability was denied.
Disclosure of documents took place on 23 February 2004. By
a letter dated 18 June 2004 UCH admitted that they had been
negligent in the treatment and care provided to F however,
they denied causation and quantum. A trial was fixed for 21
February 2005. This was subsequently extended to 14 March
2005.
The Schedule of Damage and Future Loss served by William
quantified his claim at £1,611,616.50. The Counter Schedule
filed by UCH estimated loss at £506,971.00.
By Order dated 2 December 2004, UCH was to make an interim
payment of £50,000. On 19 January 2005 William made
a Part 36 offer of £1.2m.
UCH rejected this offer in a letter dated 11th February 2005
and made an offer to settle the case for £750,000, but
no payment was made into Court. A further offer was made by
UCH by letter dated 18 February 2005 for £900,000. William
accepted this offer and proceedings were stayed by virtue
of a Tomlin Order sealed on 23 February 2005.
|
