The claimant, a 49-year-old man, received £1,200,000 for the severe brain damage sustained following treatment for a throat infection in January 1997. The claimant’s care was funded jointly by the local authority and health authority, and it was agreed that the funding should remain in place following settlement.
Claimant: Male, 43 years old at date of accident; 49 years old at date of settlement.
Clinical Negligence: In January 1997, the claimant was admitted to the defendant’s hospital for treatment of a severe throat infection. The claimant was diagnosed with supraglottitis and a doctor at the defendant’s hospital gave instructions that the claimant should be carefully monitored.
The swelling in the claimant’s throat increased causing his breathing to deteriorate, and an emergency tracheostomy was carried out. However, by the time of the tracheostomy, the claimant had suffered from a significant period of cerebral hypoxia, causing him further injuries.
The claimant brought an action against the defendant alleging that it had been negligent in failing to adequately monitor the claimant’s condition, which caused his subsequent injuries.
Liability disputed. The defendant disputed the claimant’s allegations of both liability and causation. On 16 July 2001, judgement was entered for the claimant after the defendant had not served any expert evidence to support its defence.
Injuries: The claimant sustained severe brain damage after suffering from cerebral hypoxia.
Effects: The claimant suffered from severe physical disabilities as a result of the brain damage. The claimant was unable to walk and was wheelchair dependant at all times. The claimant also had virtually no movement in his arms, and he required 24-hour care and assistance from others. The claimant was functionally blind. He had retained some cognitive function, and subsequently had some insight into his injuries. The claimant did not have the capacity to manage his own affairs and he suffered from communication difficulties making it was difficult for others to understand him. The claimant suffered from periods of frustration as a result of his own insight into his condition and the difficulties that others had understanding him.
Prognosis: The claimant’s condition was permanent, and no improvement or deterioration in his condition was likely. The claimant’s life expectancy was reduced by approximately five years as a result of his condition.
Out of Court Settlement (approved): £1,200,000 total damages.
Background to Damages: The case was settled on a global basis and no particular breakdown of the damages was formulated. However, the following breakdown was estimated by the claimant’s solicitor:
Estimated Breakdown of General Damages: Pain, suffering and loss of amenity: £150,000; Future care: £1,000,000.
Estimated Breakdown of Special Damages: Past losses: £50,000.
Expert evidence was obtained on the claimant’s future care requirements, and following lengthy consideration it was determined that the most appropriate long-term care could be provided for the claimant in a residential environment, with the addition of a one-to-one carer. At the date of settlement the claimant’s residential placement was funded by both the local authority and the health authority, and the claimant contended that it was imperative that the funding should continue following settlement.
Following the decisions in Bell v (1) Todd (2) Tyneside MBC (2001) LTL 9/8/2001 and (1) Ryan (2) Liverpool City Council v Liverpool Health Authority (2001) LTL 10/10/2001, it was agreed that no charge could be made as the claimant’s fund would be held by the Court of Protection.
Alan Jeffreys QC and Alexander Dawson instructed by Henmans (Oxford) for the claimant. Charlotte Jones instructed by Beachcroft Wansborough (Winchester) for the defendant. LTLPI 25/2/2002 (Unreported elsewhere)
Document No. AM0200371. Reproduced by kind permission of Lawtel (www.lawtel.com)