Our client had surgery to replace her right hip in 2018 which was not performed to a reasonable standard – leading to three further surgeries on the hip later that year. James Bell was instructed to investigate her case and, following a Letter of Claim, the Defendant Hospital Trust admitted the initial surgery was negligent. However, the full extent of the impact of the negligence was disputed.
The case was complicated. Our client’s condition deteriorated and in 2022 she was diagnosed with a deep bone infection. As a result of the hip bone infection, our client needed a Girdlestone procedure which involved the removal of the femoral head and neck of the thigh bone.
Our client was left severely disabled with no right hip and a shortened right leg. She has very reduced mobility and can only manage a few steps, otherwise using a wheelchair. This left her unable to access the upper floors of her house. She now suffers from severe depression and agoraphobia. Additionally, she developed a large abdominal hernia contributed to by the strain associated with her right hip problems. Had the initial surgery been carried out correctly, it is likely that our client would have had a fully functioning hip following recovery.
James commenced formal Court proceedings on behalf of the client. Thereafter further admissions were made by the Hospital Trust. They accepted that the negligence led to revision surgery being required, the first of which was unsuccessful, and that two further surgeries were then needed. However, other issues were not accepted.
James successfully obtained a significant sum of interim damages for our client, who was then able to employ a case manager to assist with coordinating her care and other needs.
The overall amount that could justifiably be claimed on behalf of our client was rigorously investigated, with seven experts reporting in the fields of orthopaedic surgery, psychiatry, care, accommodation, orthotics, neurophysiology and physiotherapy. The Claimant also successfully fought off a late application to adduce life expectancy evidence. The Defendant’s application to introduce the same was refused by the court at a contested interlocutory hearing.
The Defendant sought to dispute various parts of the claim, including the need for a home hydrotherapy pool. Nonetheless, James fought hard for the best possible outcome and the case came very close to trial, settling only a couple of weeks before it was due to start.
The final settlement was for a lump sum of £1,625,000 alongside Periodical Payments of £168,000 per year from 2025 to 2029 and thereafter for life at £216,500 annually.
This represents an excellent outcome for the client who can in the first instance look to move to more suitable accommodation.
I know that I’ve said it before but thank you from the bottom of my heart for your hard work and support over the last few years.
A client