The claimant, a 22-year-old woman, received £30,000 for scarring and a distorted navel which occurred after she underwent an operation as a child, in February 1990. She experienced pain and bleeding around the scar and it was expected that she would require surgery before and after pregnancies.
Claimant: Female: 4 years old at date of incident; 22 years old at date of settlement.
Clinical Negligence: On February 21, 1990, the claimant (C) was admitted to a hospital of the defendant trust (D) with appendicitis. She underwent an appendicectomy the same day. It was noted that she had a high subcaecal perforated appendix.
On February 23, it was recorded that C had passed blood rectally and that her abdomen was tender. She underwent a blood transfusion. The following day a barium enema test was undertaken. The results showed a protrusion through the caecum and ascending colon. That day a laparotomy was performed through a 17cm midline incision to refashion the appendicular stump. C was discharged from hospital four days later. The midline incision developed into a keloid scar.
C sustained injury and brought an action against D alleging that it was negligent in (i) positioning the purse string suture too far from the appendix stump when performing the appendicectomy; (ii) inadequately tying the stump and the artery thereby allowing significant blood loss into the colon; (iii) failing to properly review her on February 23; (iv) performing a midline laparotomy instead of reopening and extending the appendicectomy wound. C alleged that had surgery been carried out to a reasonable standard she would have only had to undergo one operation, would have had an uneventful recovery and would not have been left with an unsightly abdominal scar.
Liability was initially disputed. D argued that (i) it had not been negligent to place the purse string suture the distance away from the stump that it had been placed; (ii) the stump had not been inadequately tied; (iii) C had been appropriately reviewed on February 23; (iv) it was correct practice to perform a laparotomy as there was a possibility that C had been suffering from peritonitis or intussusception.
Injuries: C was left with a keloid midline scar of 17cm on her abdomen and also with a distorted navel.
Effects: When C experienced growth spurts the scar cracked and bled. The scar was unsightly and visible through clothing. As a result C was self-conscious about the abdominal disfigurement and so restricted her choice of clothing to ensure that that it was not visible. It was expected that, when pregnant, C would experience stretching and breaking of the scar during the second and third trimesters. She was also advised that she would require further surgery before and after being pregnant. Her skin was unlikely to then regain its elasticity and so she would require paramedian scar revision and umbilical reconstruction. C was also at risk of further complications from peritoneal adhesions.
Out of Court Settlement: £30,000 total damages.
Breakdown of General Damages: Pain, suffering and loss of amenity: £15,000; Future costs of surgery: £12,000; Future care costs: £1,000.
Breakdown of Special Damages: Past loss of earnings for C's father, cost of lotions, past travel expenses, past care costs and interest: £2,000.
Farrah Mauladad instructed by Henmans LLP for the claimant. Capsticks Solicitors LLP for the defendants.
Document No. AM0201340. Reproduced by kind permission of Lawtel (www.lawtel.com)