SRA to undertake AML audits as enforcers keep focus on “professional enablers”
We acted for our client, M, who was injured during a gynaecological procedure.
M had heavy and painful periods. Her doctors advised her to have treatment with a TCRE (transcervical resection of endometrium) procedure, which was performed in February 2009. TCRE is a surgical procedure to remove the lining of the uterus and alleviate pain.
In the course of the surgery, sadly, faulty equipment was used. Instead of halting the procedure, we argued that the surgeon continued, and increased the heat setting on the equipment. This meant that M’s bowel and bladder were perforated during the surgery. The perforations were repaired with further surgery the following day but M went on to suffer from very painful adhesions.
Ultimately, M made a reasonably good recovery and she was able to return to work after about three months. However, she continued to suffer from painful adhesions. She even sought out a hysterectomy in case that relieved her pain but it did not. The experts in the litigation felt that M was likely to be able to continue in employment but that she would need to reduce her working week at some point over the following decade.
Initially, during the litigation, liability was denied in M’s case on the basis that TCRE surgery carries an underlying risk of perforation – ie that perforation can happen with or without poor care. However, following further argument, liability was eventually admitted and the claim resolved without the need for formal litigation.
If you, or a member of your family, would like to know more about surgical negligence claims, please email email@example.com
Skip to content Home About Us Insights Services Contact Accessibility