Medical Negligence Results In Further Hip Replacement

On behalf of Attwaters Jameson Hill posted on Friday, December 9th, 2016

Mr M was seen in hospital with increasing pain and disability in the left hip. An x-ray of the Claimant's pelvis and hips taken on 16 July 2008 revealed a good bone stock and arthritis of both hips with the left being worse than the right.

 

On 7 August 2008 Mr M underwent a left-sided total hip replacement. The Defendant failed to address the symptoms of continuing pain on the left hip and it was not until an x-ray taken on 26 January 2010 revealed a heterotopic ossification and significant migration of the acetabular component. An x-ray taken on 20 April 2010 demonstrated that the socket of the left hip was grossly loose and had migrated and there was cement evident in the anterior superior position.

The Claimant under a right total hip replacement on 29 November 2010. By this time further scans and x-rays were taken in 2011 there was pelvic discontinuity on the left and the Claimant required pelvic reconstruction surgery. As a result on 25 April 2012 the Claimant underwent a revision of the left total hip replacement at Charing Cross Hospital, when it was shown that there was extensive bone loss and a tumour had developed. As a result the Claimant underwent a further revision of his left total hip replacement on 31 October 2012. The Claimant was left with residual disability and an incredible amount of pain and suffering.

Whilst liability was admitted, causation remained denied by the Defendant and it was not until further input was provided by our expert that the Defendant finally conceded and the Claimant was awarded £50,000 of damages.

The crux of this case was bent upon expert evidence and had it not been for our expert’s input in this case it would have been difficult to put forward our arguments as to breach and causation. The instruction of experts together with conferences with Counsel and consideration of the claim meant that this Claimant got the damages that he deserved.

At times like this it is rewarding to be able to settle cases such as the above but the disappointment remains that such cases may be affected by the extent of possible government reforms for fixed fees in clinical negligence cases. Firms are sadly having to look at a case from a proportionate angle for cases less than £250,000. The sad reality for clinical negligence practitioners is that proportionality is now prevailing over justice that Claimants rightfully deserve.

Awards and Accolades

  • image awards
  • image awards
  • image awards
  • image awards
  • image awards