Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 160 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Medical Negligence - Is it worth pursuing?


Sally7216
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2536 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

I ask is it worth pursuing as after waiting for 18 months for an extremely slow 'no win, no fee' solicitor to get their act together and get a medical report from a 'specialist' sorted. The advice received is we wouldn't have above 50% chance of winning so advised to let it go. Now we only have until Oct this year left due to time limitation.

Firstly the report is not factual and many assumptions have wrongly been made.

The basics of what happened are as follows.

Oct 2014 my husband went into complete urine retention one evening. A call to 111 service at midnight got us a gp call back at 2am whereby he was advised to drink 2 litres of water and if no better contact either gp in morning or go to A & E. No attendance to him was offered only a phone consultation.

If he had been attended it would have been clear he had a lot of urine already 'stuck' and to put more pressure on his bladder by introducing a further 2 litres would cause further harm.

At 9.30am the following morning he went to A & E in excruciating pain and a bladder with 3.2 litres in it which was stretched so far it has been rendered useless ever since and he remains with a catheter in place.

Yes he had noticed as many older men do a decrease in urine output prior to this and yes his prostate is enlarged but up until that night had never given him cause for concern.

In his medical records for the visit to A & E it is stated he arrived with 3.2 litres of urine in his bladder but tge 'specialist urologist' who this solucitor got to review his notes says "whilst there is much mention of 3.2 litres in his bladder I would say it was more likely to have been around a litre after viewing A & E notes"....

Where he has arrived at this rubbish we know not. Unless he sprung a leak out of another orifice on the way to A & E.

We are both of the opinion the medical profession certainly stick together over negligence. This is a 65 year old man who now has had to give up his job because of this due to frequent infections caused by catheters and leaking embarrassing moments on train travelling to work everyday.

 

Even the out of hours 111 service admitted that in future they would send a gp out if a patient presented like this again. Also they conveniently lost recording of advice given to us the night we phoned for advice althougg they retained paper record...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Sally. I'm sorry to hear about the problems you're having and can understand why you're frustrated.

 

This forum has regulars who visit, hopefully some of them will be along later or tomorrow with advice for you.

 

HB

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

From my experience with my elderly relative being discharged from hospital (having been there for some months) and who looked awful arriving back, be prepared for a struggle when up against the NHS. My relative was re-admitted to hospital just 8 days later with acute renal failure.

 

They did go on to survive another year or so and again I had battles with the NHS about the severity of the illness and CHC, it was still under review and I was still being told that they were not 'ill' enough to get it. Death eventually proved otherwise.

 

I did submit a formal complaint about the discharge and got fobbed off. Also the CHC assessments were completely full of errors, I used a SAR to get records, and also full medical records and found lots of inconsistencies.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I ask is it worth pursuing as after waiting for 18 months for an extremely slow 'no win, no fee' solicitor to get their act together and get a medical report from a 'specialist' sorted. The advice received is we wouldn't have above 50% chance of winning so advised to let it go. Now we only have until Oct this year left due to time limitation.

Firstly the report is not factual and many assumptions have wrongly been made.

The basics of what happened are as follows.

Oct 2014 my husband went into complete urine retention one evening. A call to 111 service at midnight got us a gp call back at 2am whereby he was advised to drink 2 litres of water and if no better contact either gp in morning or go to A & E. No attendance to him was offered only a phone consultation.

If he had been attended it would have been clear he had a lot of urine already 'stuck' and to put more pressure on his bladder by introducing a further 2 litres would cause further harm.

At 9.30am the following morning he went to A & E in excruciating pain and a bladder with 3.2 litres in it which was stretched so far it has been rendered useless ever since and he remains with a catheter in place.

Yes he had noticed as many older men do a decrease in urine output prior to this and yes his prostate is enlarged but up until that night had never given him cause for concern.

In his medical records for the visit to A & E it is stated he arrived with 3.2 litres of urine in his bladder but tge 'specialist urologist' who this solucitor got to review his notes says "whilst there is much mention of 3.2 litres in his bladder I would say it was more likely to have been around a litre after viewing A & E notes"....

Where he has arrived at this rubbish we know not. Unless he sprung a leak out of another orifice on the way to A & E.

We are both of the opinion the medical profession certainly stick together over negligence. This is a 65 year old man who now has had to give up his job because of this due to frequent infections caused by catheters and leaking embarrassing moments on train travelling to work everyday.

 

Even the out of hours 111 service admitted that in future they would send a gp out if a patient presented like this again. Also they conveniently lost recording of advice given to us the night we phoned for advice althougg they retained paper record...

I had a 5 year battle and won a 6 figure sum and without a solicitor in sight.

I contacted NHSLA directly and they were actually helpful.

The trick is to keep it simple. Get your own report done. Ignore talk of it costing 1,000's it shouldnt be more than 3 or 4 hundred. Get a list of approved experts from NHSLA and go directly to the expert yourself with your story and med records, submit the report to NHSLA and they are obliged to counter it by getting one done themselves. It's plain sailing after that and the 3 year rule shouldnt apply or count if NHSLA are aware of your claim.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

NHS Litigation Authority link: http://www.nhsla.com/Pages/Home.aspx

How to Upload Documents/Images on CAG - **INSTRUCTIONS CLICK HERE**

FORUM RULES - Please ensure to read these before posting **FORUM RULES CLICK HERE**

I cannot give any advice by PM - If you provide a link to your Thread then I will be happy to offer advice there.

I advise to the best of my ability, but I am not a qualified professional, benefits lawyer nor Welfare Rights Adviser.

Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a 5 year battle and won a 6 figure sum and without a solicitor in sight.

I contacted NHSLA directly and they were actually helpful.

The trick is to keep it simple. Get your own report done. Ignore talk of it costing 1,000's it shouldnt be more than 3 or 4 hundred. Get a list of approved experts from NHSLA and go directly to the expert yourself with your story and med records, submit the report to NHSLA and they are obliged to counter it by getting one done themselves. It's plain sailing after that and the 3 year rule shouldnt apply or count if NHSLA are aware of your claim.

 

Thankyou for that advice we will look into doing that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As regards the medical consequences of what occurred, I leave that to those more knowledgeable. But as regards the legal process:

 

1. It may well be the case that as a complaint to the NHS there is no reason to think that just because the process extends over more than 3 years, it is no longer somehow valid. But as regards litigation, proceedings involving personal injury will usually be 'time-barred' if they haven't been formally commenced (i.e by service of a Writ) within 3 years from the date of injury.

 

And it's not unduly cynical, in my view, to predict that a complaint that is no longer backed by the possibility of litigation will be treated even more dismissively than before.

 

2. It is the case that one's own 'expert' medic can turn out quite shamelessly to conjecture 'facts' which are not supported by the written evidence. This is indeed a form of outrageous, mutual back-scratching amongst the medical profession: I have seen it happen to a member of my own family right under my legal nose.

 

This should be addressed by the solicitors acting for the claimant (e.g. by questioning the expert on his\ her report, or by getting a new one.) If I wasn't confident that this was being sorted out properly, I would change solicitors - keeping a very vigilant eye on the 3 year limitation period.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you dispensed with the services of the NWNF lawyer, because if you haven't and you take this on yourself, they will have their grubby paws out in the event that you obtain a settlement.

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy - HERE

2: Take back control of your finances - Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors? Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt  Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated - Please Read

BCOBS

1: How can BCOBS protect you from your Banks unfair treatment

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

Advice & opinions given by citizenb are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

It should be very easy to find out how much urine was actually in the bladder. At first they would have done a bladder scan which gives an estimate, any machine I have ever used for this the maximum reading they give is +999 it does not have the ability to estimate any higher than that so would have been impossible to get a figure of 3.2 litres that way so the question is where did that figure come from? did he have an ultrasound? and what was the actual residual volume when he was catheterised? The residual volume is all that really matters because that is the actual amount that was there. If the 3.2 litres was the residual volume then I don't see how the person doing the medical report could say it was less than that. If however the 3.2 litres was the estimate, but the residual was only one litre then what the urologist said would make sense at least on paper. I guess what I am saying is that you need to see what he seen, what is actually on the medical notes because that's the only way I think you can get to the bottom of it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It should be very easy to find out how much urine was actually in the bladder. At first they would have done a bladder scan which gives an estimate, any machine I have ever used for this the maximum reading they give is +999 it does not have the ability to estimate any higher than that so would have been impossible to get a figure of 3.2 litres that way so the question is where did that figure come from? did he have an ultrasound? and what was the actual residual volume when he was catheterised? The residual volume is all that really matters because that is the actual amount that was there. If the 3.2 litres was the residual volume then I don't see how the person doing the medical report could say it was less than that. If however the 3.2 litres was the estimate, but the residual was only one litre then what the urologist said would make sense at least on paper. I guess what I am saying is that you need to see what he seen, what is actually on the medical notes because that's the only way I think you can get to the bottom of it.

 

A&E wouldn't necessarily have done an ultrasound.

 

Patient not passed urine?. Palpable bladder and pain on palpation?.

A&E don't have to do "definitive care" ; that would be enough to say "in urinary retention, needs a catheter to relieve it". Why would then spend time doing an ultrasound if they'd reached a diagnosis and a plan?.

 

I agree, though, that if the residual volume was noted when catheterised (or even "in excess of x amount"), an expert would have to say that it was measured wrongly to say that that wasn't the volume obtained .....

Link to post
Share on other sites

A&E wouldn't necessarily have done an ultrasound.

 

Patient not passed urine?. Palpable bladder and pain on palpation?.

A&E don't have to do "definitive care" ; that would be enough to say "in urinary retention, needs a catheter to relieve it". Why would then spend time doing an ultrasound if they'd reached a diagnosis and a plan?.

 

I agree, though, that if the residual volume was noted when catheterised (or even "in excess of x amount"), an expert would have to say that it was measured wrongly to say that that wasn't the volume obtained .....

 

I highly doubt they would have done an ultrasound, though they may have done a bladder scan which takes less than a minute to do if you have a machine available (although that is a big if). That's why i was wondering where the figures came from because it's interesting that there is a massive discrepancy in the nunbers and that seems to be what is important to the lawyer. It would be extremely bad practice for them not to note the residual volume in any circumstance when someone is catheterised but even more so when in acute retention

Link to post
Share on other sites

I highly doubt they would have done an ultrasound, though they may have done a bladder scan which takes less than a minute to do if you have a machine available

 

How does the 'bladder scan' work, if not ultrasound?.

 

It may be a portable ultrasound, rather than a 'departmental machine', but surely it is still ultrasound?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a specific machine for bladder scanning, but its similar technology to an ultrasound - you literally point and click and it gives an estimate of urine volume takes less than a minute there is no need to interpret the results or anything the way there is with an actual ultrasound because it just tells you the number. The machines are not always easy to come by in a hospital though as they don't tend to have many of them and they get borrowed and not returned all the time so its not a 100% thing that they would have done one, but had the machine been available they would have.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a specific machine for bladder scanning, but its similar technology to an ultrasound -

 

Its not "similar technology", it is still ultrasound. It does the calculation for you, but it is ultrasound.

 

 

you literally point and click and it gives an estimate of urine volume takes less than a minute there is no need to interpret the results or anything the way there is with an actual ultrasound because it just tells you the number. The machines are not always easy to come by in a hospital though as they don't tend to have many of them and they get borrowed and not returned all the time so its not a 100% thing that they would have done one, but had the machine been available they would have.

 

If they have a diagnosis of urinary retention, it still isn't needed in A&E.

 

If the diagnosis was in doubt, then sure, scan.

But, if the diagnosis isn't in doubt, it is a waste (of time, in finding the machine and doing the scan, and of the resource of the machine).

 

If it isn't needed to establish the diagnosis, what is it adding?. It isn't adding a measurement of the residual, as that can be obtained by placing the catheter, which is what is needed for the management plan.

 

If it can only take time, isn't adding a diagnosis (if the diagnosis has been made), and isn't adding to the measurement of the residual, why waste time doing it?.

 

They should be thinking "with their A&E head on" in A&E.

Not "what do we have to do to definitively manage every problem" but "what do we need to do to get a diagnosis and a management plan, and do that without adding unnecessary bells and whistles", so they can get to the next A&E patient...... leaving the definitive management to them appropriate specialty (which includes GP as a specialty in its own right).

 

Returning to the OP's situation : was the residual recorded as part of the A&E notes for the catheterisation?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

A bladder scan was done to establish it was full. The 3.2 came from what immediately came out once he was cathertised. We know he drank the 2 litres as instructed so it never came out until it was released.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont honestly think he has the energy to take on anymore stress fighting this. We cannot afford to get an independent urologist report done as he's had to retire due to this and other health issues if they are just going to come up with the same old truck and noting the statute time bar and the fact that if by some miracle he got compensation the solicitor we have would demand some of that.

 

I hadnt replied before because he just had sepsis and pneumonia. Got over that and I've just dropped him at hospital for planned surgery (tongue biopsy). He's not well with severe copd/emphysema so i guess he has to live with it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...