Medical negligence via surgery may occur for a number of possible reasons including insufficient staff, tiredness due to excess hours, insufficient skills and/or experience, insufficient supervision, lack of correct tools or equipment, ineffective communication, poor procedures (e.g. poor sterilising processes leading to infection), or lack of planning.

To bring a claim for surgical negligence, it will be necessary to provide evidence that:

• The surgeon, anaesthetist, or other healthcare professional involved in your care performed their duty in a way that was below a satisfactory standard (i.e. that another surgeon or healthcare professional would not have made the same error), and;

• This negligence caused you damage or injury.

To prove your case, we will compile evidence, including medical or care records, and seek expert medical opinion

Claims following surgical negligence may cover two areas of loss:

• Pain and suffering due to the injury; and

• Specific costs resulting from the injury caused. This may cover costs already incurred, such as transport, accommodation, and medical treatment, and expected future expenses, such as physical therapy and care costs.

The costs you receive will be based on the precise injuries suffered and the circumstances of the case.

Case Overview:

Our client was diagnosed with ectopic adrenocorticotrophic hormone (ACTH) his adrenal glands were producing excessive level of cortisol.

He was initially treated with medication but he was advised that such treatment was temporary and he would ultimately require removal of both adrenal glands.

Despite the option of bilateral adrenalectomy being available, a decision was made to proceed initially by way of a left adrenalectomy and thereafter, following a period of recuperation, to undertake a right adrenalectomy.

He was admitted to hospital to undergo a left laparoscopic adrenalectomy.  At surgery, the operation note indicates that a “massively enlarged” adrenal gland was identified, which was described as expanding in front of the renal vessels and below the pelvis of the kidney.  In the course of dissecting the mass off the renal vessels, severe bleeding was encountered which necessitated converting the surgery to an open procedure.  Ultimately however, the operation note confirms “adrenalectomy completed”.

Despite the content of the operation note, the subsequent histology report revealed that the left adrenal gland had not been removed.  CT examination confirmed that the left adrenal gland remained in situ; the surgery that had in fact been undertaken was a partial pancreatectomy up to the pancreatic neck.

In the aftermath of his surgery, he required prolonged admission to the intensive care unit and his condition was complicated by pancreatic leak and sepsis.  He underwent a bilateral adrenalectomy and a splenectomy, the latter procedure being required in order to repair the injury to the pancreas created at his initial surgery.

This case was mediated a week in advance of the trial and ultimately settled for a substantial sum.

Case Overview:

The Plaintiff in this matter received a significant settlement following a surgical error.

The Plaintiff underwent a laparoscopic cholecystectomy which was complicated by bleeding and had to be converted to an open procedure. At this point, the surgeons discovered she also had a bile leak.

Subsequent to her discharge, our client experienced persistent upper abdominal and back pain with intermittent nausea.  Owing to a deterioration in her condition, our client attended the Emergency Department where she was admitted to undergo computerized tomography ("CT") examination of her abdomen.

The CT examination revealed evidence of a collection of a mixture of bile and blood in the gallbladder fossa.  Our client required treatment with intravenous antibiotics for a five-day period and thereafter with oral antibiotics before discharge from the Hospital.

The Plaintiff instructed Lavelle Partners to investigate the circumstances of her case.

In advance of the trial date, the case was successfully settled without an admission of liability on the part of the hospital.

Case Overview:

We obtained a significant settlement for a client who developed colon cancer as a result of a hospital’s failure to offer him follow-up treatment.

The Plaintiff attended the defendant hospital for a colonoscopy in February 2012 and showed multiple polyps. A biopsy showed them to be pre-malignant tubulovillous adenomatous with low grade dysplasia. Three months later he had a repeat colonoscopy with recurrent polyps and three months later, in August 2012, he had a repeat colonoscopy and the removal of these polyps.

The colonoscopy in August 2012 was incomplete in that it did not reach the caecum.

The Defendant admitted that the colonoscopy in August 2012 should have led to a detection on or before September 2012 of development of cancer in his colon.

The next colonoscopy carried out by the defendant was in February 2014 whereupon the diagnosis of cancer was made.

Lavelle Partners obtained expert evidence from the UK in relation to breach of duty and causation and issued proceedings on behalf of the Plaintiff.

The case was successfully settled for a significant sum with costs in advance of the trial.

Case Overview:

Our client presented to the emergency department at a hospital complaining of a progressively worsening headache which had been ongoing for in excess of a week.

CT brain imaging was performed which was reported as normal. He was then discharged from the emergency department.

He represented again to the emergency department with persistent symptoms of headaches and left leg weakness.  Upon clinical examination, left lower limb weakness, mild ataxia with difficulty performing left heel to shin test, and a left visual defect were noted. He was admitted to hospital for further investigation where he underwent repeat CT brain and CT angiogram of the neck vessels, both of which were unremarkable.

He underwent a lumbar puncture which was recorded in his clinical notes as traumatic, with blood visible in the sample obtained.  The procedure was not adequately documented and, in particular, the position of our client when the lumber puncture was being performed, the type and size of the needle used, the spinal segment level at which the cerebrospinal fluid (“CSF”) tap was attempted, and the number of insertions or passes made in order to obtain CSF were not recorded.

In the aftermath of the lumbar puncture, he complained of left leg weakness with an inability to perform heel-toe testing. His condition deteriorated further. In view of his presentation, MRI imaging of the spine was undertaken, to investigate the neurological deficits of which he complained. Subsequent review of the MRI confirmed evidence of substantial spinal haemorrhage with intramedullary signal abnormality.

Unfortunately, owing to the manner in which a lumbar puncture procedure was performed he suffered significant neurological injury with ongoing lower limb paresis and bladder and bowel dysfunction.

This case was fully defended and was mediated a week in advance of the trial date.  This case ultimately settled for a significant sum.