The estate and partner of a deceased 82-year-old man received ?96,000 following his death from an infarction after receiving medical injections. It was alleged, but disputed by the defendant, that the appropriate procedures were not carried out before and whilst the injections were administered and that if the deceased had been warned about the full risks associated with the treatment he would not have agreed to receive the injections.
The claimants were the executors and partner of the deceased (X) who died on November 28, 2008, aged 82. X's partner was approximately 10 years younger than him.
Clinical Negligence: On November 4, 2008, following a referral, X attended an appointment with the defendant doctor (D) for private treatment in respect of his moderate back and shoulder pain. D advised X to undergo cervical joint facet and nerve root injections. On November 20, X attended the clinic to undergo the injections and signed a consent form which indicated that the course of treatment was to be "cervical joint facet injection plus C6+C7 nerve root blocks". The intended benefit was noted as being "pain relief" and serious or frequently occurring risks were "bleeding/bruising: worsening of pain". X underwent the injections and as the last needle was withdrawn he experienced an episode of supraventricular tachycardia and raised blood pressure. He was unresponsive and not breathing and it was decided that he should be intubated. Following intubation, X regained consciousness but was unable to breathe or move on command. He died eight days later.
A post-mortem found that there had been an infarction of the left side of X's upper cervical cord which extended into the medulla. At an inquest in June 2009 a verdict of accidental death/death by misadventure was recorded.
X died and the claimant (C), who was X's partner, brought an action against D alleging that he was negligent in (i) failing to provide X with appropriate counselling before carrying out the procedure; (ii) failing to use anteroposterior in addition to the lateral projections used, when checking the position of the needles during the procedure; (iii) failing to use contrast to assess intravascular placement. C alleged that the consent form did not refer to serious complications and that X should have been warned about rare but devastating complications including a stroke/neurological damage and spinal cord damage. C contended that if X had been warned, he would not have undergone the procedure and that, if the procedure had been carried out to a competent standard, X would not have suffered the infarction.
Liability disputed. Breach of duty and causation disputed.
Injuries: X died.
Effects: X's partner was left alone and suffered a loss of dependency, and loss of love and affection.
Out of Court Settlement: ?96,000 total damages
Background to damages: The settlement was reached taking into account the risk of litigation.
The case was settled on a global basis with no particular breakdown of damages. However, the following breakdown was estimated by the claimant's solicitors:
Breakdown of General Damages: Pain, suffering and loss of amenity suffered by C: ?5,000; Losses suffered by C including loss of financial dependency and loss of love and affection: ?76,600.
Breakdown of Special Damages: Miscellaneous past costs for X's estate including funeral expenses, travel expenses, grant of probate and interest: ?13,440; Past private medical treatment costs: ?960.
Thomas Leeper instructed by Henmans LLP (Oxford) for the claimants. Berrymans Lace Mawer LLP for the defendant.
LTLPI 16/1/2012
Document No. AM0201881. Reproduced by kind premission of Lawtel (www.lawtel.co.uk)