The claimant, a 67-year-old man, received £127,500 after his wife died in July 2003 from a cardiac arrest caused by an undiagnosed pulmonary embolism. He witnessed events leading up to and including his wife's death and he suffered a major depressive episode as a result. The claimant (C) was the widower of the deceased (X). X died on July 21, 2003, aged 60.
Claimant: Male: 63 years old at date of incident; 67 years old at date of settlement.
Clinical Negligence: On July 9, 2003, X was referred to a hospital of the defendant trust (D) complaining of shortness of breath and pleuritic chest pain. At hospital X was advised to undergo a test to determine whether she was suffering from a pulmonary embolism. However, she was discharged the same day without a follow-up appointment having been booked or a discharge letter being sent to her GP. On July 21, 2003, X was admitted to the hospital's accident and emergency department after complaining of shortness of breath. C accompanied her to hospital. She was given intravenous hydrocortisone and inhaled Salbutamol and Atrovent. She later suffered a cardiac arrest. Staff attempted to resuscitate her but were unsuccessful. X subsequently died of a cardiac arrest caused by a pulmonary embolism. C remained with X until her death.
C lost his wife and brought an action against D under the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934 on behalf of the estate, under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 as a dependant and for negligence in relation to psychiatric injuries he claimed to have suffered as a result of witnessing the events leading up to and including X's death. C alleged that D was negligent in (i) failing to carry out investigations on July 9 in order to diagnose that X was suffering a pulmonary embolism; (ii) failing to administer anticoagulant treatment. C claimed that had the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism been made on July 9, or shortly thereafter, X would have been successfully treated and would have survived.
Liability admitted in part. D admitted liability in relation to the claims made pursuant to the 1934 and 1976 Acts prior to proceedings being issued. D initially disputed C's personal injury claim. D's expert psychiatrist believed that C's psychiatric illness was caused by grief rather than by being a witness to the circumstances of X's death.
Injuries: C lost his wife and witnessed events leading up to and including her death.
Effects: As a result of witnessing his wife die, C alleged that he had suffered a major depressive episode. The expert psychiatrist instructed by C advised that C would have suffered a major depressive episode as a result of being bereaved, but the circumstances of the death caused the depression to be more serious and prolonged than it would have been but for the negligence. C suffered the loss of X's services and loss of her love and affection. He was unable to return to work and as a result suffered loss of earnings for 12 months prior to the date he had planned to retire.
The claim settled for a total of £127,500; this was achieved as follows:
Out of Court Settlement in relation to the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934 and the Fatal Accidents Act 1976: £90,000 total damages
Background to damages: This part of the claim 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: X's pain, suffering and loss of amenity: £3,000; Bereavement award: £10,000; Loss of dependency and loss of wife's companionship: £75,500.
Breakdown of Special Damages: Funeral expenses: £1,500.
Out of Court Settlement in relation to the negligence claim: £37,500 total damages.
Background to damages: This part of 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: £12,000;
Breakdown of Special Damages: Past treatment costs: £2,500; Past loss of earnings: £23,000
Farrah Mauladad instructed by Henmans LLP (Oxford) for the claimant. Capsticks Solicitors LLP for the defendant. LTLPI 23/1/2009 (Unreported elsewhere)
Document No. AM0201325. Reproduced by kind permission of Lawtel (www.lawtel.com)