Orthopaedic surgery is centred around the bones and joints of the skeleton and as a result involve muscles, soft-tissue, ligaments, tendons, and nerves.  As such, any orthopaedic surgery if not undertaken correctly can lead to damage to any of these body structures.  Surgery may be required due to:

• Degenerative disease (e.g. osteoarthritis)

• Trauma (e.g. due to a fall, car accident, assault)

• Sports injury

• Cancer

• Poor nutrition

• Congenital diseases (e.g. brittle bone disease)

• Damage caused during birth

Types of Errors

Errors, while rare, can occur during orthopaedic surgery, including:

• Incorrect or delayed diagnosis of injury or disease

• Failure to explain the risks of surgery, a procedure, or medication

• Mistakes made during surgery

• Infection

• Surgery to the wrong part of the body

• Damage to nerves, muscles, or soft-tissue

• Incorrect fitting of a prosthesis (e.g. knee or hip replacements), including incorrect sizing

• Incorrect use of equipment or techniques to assist the birth, leading to bone or joint damage

• Damage caused when attempting to realign bones

Depending on the extent of the damage caused, patients may be able to make a full recovery in a relatively short period of time, or the injury may lead to life-long complications, pain, suffering and disability. Patients may be left with immobile joints, inability to walk or weight-bear, severe pain, and loss of sensation due to damaged blood supply or nerves.

Some people may be left unable to return to work, continue studies, care for themselves and others, and continue with life as it once was. It may be necessary to have further medical procedures and therapies to make a partial or complete recovery from the damage caused by orthopaedic surgery negligence.

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

• The medical care you received was below a satisfactory standard (i.e. that a competent surgeon 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 records, and seek expert medical opinion

Claims following orthopaedic surgery 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.