Blog
Kingsley Napley’s Medical Negligence Team ‘walks together’ with the Dame Vera Lynn Children’s Charity
Sharon Burkill
Our client, a child with achondroplasia (a pre-existing genetic bone disorder), had a routine MRI scan when she was nine years old which revealed a potential spinal tumour. As a result, she was booked to have a biopsy to assess whether the tumour was cancerous or benign. The paediatric neurosurgeon assigned to perform the procedure changed shortly before the operation date and the alternative surgeon proceeded to undertake a much more extensive and risky procedure than the planned biopsy, called a ‘debulking’ procedure. This is where a tumour is partially resected – the size (bulk) of the tumour is reduced as much as possible.
At the end of the procedure there was a clear indicator of a problem – our client’s Motor Evoked Potentials (MEPs) were reduced. MEPs check pathways from the brain to selected muscles in the legs, hands and feet and are used to detect and reduce injury to the spinal cord during surgery. The surgeon did not realise or act upon this issue. Our client’s case was that the surgical wound should have been re-opened and the spinal cord decompressed. Following surgery our client’s condition deteriorated. She was left tetraplegic, paralysed from the waist down and reliant on a ventilator via a tracheostomy.
Our case was that the surgery had been negligently undertaken without consent and that there had been a failure to act upon the loss of MEPs. We also advanced an alternative claim that carrying out the surgery without consent was a battery. After we started formal Court proceedings the Defendant admitted liability and attention turned to valuing our client’s life-long needs.
The value of the claim was disputed including what impact our client’s pre-existing conditions would have had on her ability to live independently had she not sustained her spinal cord injury. The case was hard fought with experts required in many disciplines including genetics, paediatric neurology, paediatric neurosurgery, paediatric oncology, spinal cord injury rehabilitation, urology, orthopaedics, orthotics, accommodation, care and assistive technology.
Our client’s expert evidence was that her spinal tumour would not have been life limiting had it been correctly treated. Although she would have faced some physical restrictions with physically demanding tasks and would have required a mobility scooter to assist with longer periods of mobility, she would have been able to live independently and drive a car. Our client now requires lifelong care 24 hours a day.
The very significant settlement reached in this case was split between a lump sum and annual periodical payments for care and case management.