Find out how
Mrs J’s estate recovered £90,000
In January 2003 Mrs J collapsed and was taken by ambulance to Hospital, where it was discovered that she had a ruptured aneurism in the right temporal lobe and this was coiled. Following her discharge she underwent yearly scans.
A few months later following her discharge from hospital she began to suffered with seizures and currents. She attended numerous appointments with her GP and was seen by Neurologists at the Hospital. She was advised she had epilepsy and she was given some medication and advised not to drive. No scans were carried out.
The ‘currents’ become worse and worse and it began affecting her speech. Despite her numerous appointments with various doctors no investigations were carried out.
By December 2009 she could no longer work as the ‘currents’ were debilitating. Finally she was told that she was suffering from classic signs of temporal lobe tumour and she was diagnosed with a Glioma. The consultant advised her that having reviewed her yearly scans since 2003 the tumour was clear on the scans and it had been getting bigger.
She underwent an operation in December 2010 where part of the tumour was removed.
She was unable to work and was very depressed about the delay in diagnosis.
Between 22 October 2004 and on or around 20 January 2007, lost, misplaced, destroyed the study results from 22 October 2004. Had the results been available in 2007 a comparison with the study on 20 January 2007 would have been possible. This would or should have led to a differential diagnosis of a glioma.
The Hospital also failed to read and/or report the study of 5 January 2008 adequately or at all. Increased swelling of the right temporal lobe was apparent from the images. This was indicative of a glioma.
The hospital admitted that Mrs J’s scan from 2008 showed an abnormality which could and should have been identified.
They, however, denied that it was a breach of duty to make an earlier diagnosis and said the appearances in 2007 were quite subtle and the MRI scans were not designed to look for abnormalities of brain tissue but rather the brain’s arteries.
We contended that but for the Defendant’s negligence the Mrs J’s glioma would have been diagnosed 3 years and 3 months earlier. In the alternative it would have been diagnosed 2 years and 3 months earlier.
As a result of the delayed diagnosis Mrs J suffered from ongoing uncontrolled epileptic seizures. It was our case that but for the Defendant’s negligence her seizures would have improved via medication 3 years and 3 months, or 2 years and 3 months earlier – ie: in June 2008 or June 2009.
Unfortunately Mrs J died and the claim was therefore brought on behalf of her estate. Both parties obtained a number of medical reports including neurology evidence and the two neurologists met and prepared a joint statement.