Types of medical negligence claims

The vast majority of operations are successful and pass without undue complications. Occasionally, surgeons make avoidable mistakes and these may lead to a medical negligence claim. Developments with keyhole or laparoscopic surgery have been beneficial with reduced recovery times, but with such advances come new risks associated with different surgical techniques and a possible lack of training.

All surgery is likely to carry at least some risk and problems occur on occasions. Simply because something may have gone wrong during a surgical procedure does not necessarily mean the surgeon has been negligent.
To establish negligence, the surgeon must have done something no reasonably competent practitioner would have done.
It is also necessary to establish that this negligence caused the injury. Independent medical evidence is usually required to provide comment on the standard of treatment given and the injuries sustained.
General surgical errors make up a large percentage of medical negligence claims and are usually much easier to recognise than some other medical mistakes, with the consequences often more severe.

Some of the more common types of claim include:

Surgical equipment left inside the patient resulting in long-term illnesses.
Post-operative care being below a reasonable standard resulting in additional suffering.
Delays in operating and unnecessary operations.
Inadequate preoperative assessments including failure to warn of risk involved with surgery.
Anaesthetic awareness where the patient is conscious during the operation, leading to increased pain and later psychological disorder following surgery.

This is surgery specifically dealing with the female reproductive system, including the uterus, vagina and ovaries. Whilst such surgical procedures have become safer and easier to perform, there are risks associated with this treatment and it is a common area for potential medical negligence claims.

All surgery is likely to carry some risk and problems occur on occasions. Simply because something may have gone wrong during a surgical procedure does not necessarily mean the surgeon has been negligent.
To establish negligence, the surgeon must have done something no reasonably competent practitioner would have done.
It is also necessary to establish that this negligence caused the injury.
Some of the most common risks of gynaecological treatment include damage to the bladder and bowel and if accidentally damaged, it may not automatically give rise to a claim.
A doctor will usually advise of these and other risks prior to performing any surgical procedure, so a failure to warn of the risks may be good grounds upon which to base a claim.
Similarly, the failure to recognise and treat such damage can form the basis of a claim. Damage to the bladder can lead to leakage of urine and is likely to require further surgery. Damage to the bowel can lead to leaking of faecal matter into the abdominal cavity, resulting in peritonitis and sepsis. Again, further surgery is usually required.
It is vital to make any diagnosis as soon as possible to limit the extent of the damage and claims may arise due to a failure to recognise obvious symptoms following surgery.

Some of the more common types of claim include:

Failed sterilisations, including neglecting to warn a patient of the risks of possible failure.
Injuries to the patient during termination of a pregnancy and loss of childbearing potential.
Injuries during hysterectomies such as bladder damage and a failure to remedy.
Damage arising during laparoscopic investigations or surgery.
Unnecessary surgery and failure to give informed consent to a medical procedure.

Orthopaedic treatment is concerned with the musculoskeletal system and involves the use of both surgical and nonsurgical techniques to treat conditions caused by trauma, degenerative diseases, sports injuries and infections. This area has seen a steady rise in negligence claims, possibly because orthopaedic surgery is relatively common and it is slightly easier to determine when errors occur.

All treatment is likely to carry at least some risk and problems occur on occasions. Simply because something may have gone wrong during the treatment does not necessarily mean there has been negligence on the part of the treatment provider.
To establish negligence, the treatment provider must have done something no reasonably competent practitioner would have done.
It is also necessary to establish that this negligence caused the injury.
Claims may arise where there is a failure to fully explain the consequences of an operation or obtain the full and informed consent of the patient, for example when undergoing a new surgical procedure without being given the option of having more conventional surgery.
It may be possible to bring a claim where there is a failure to provide a correct diagnosis, poor surgical techniques or substandard postoperative care.
Poor treatment of Achilles tendon, anterior cruciate ligament and metatarsal injuries are common sources of claims against orthopaedic consultants and physiotherapists for delays in diagnosis and referrals for further treatment.

Some of the more common types of claim include:

Failing to diagnose and treat a fracture or diagnosing the wrong type of fracture
Poor surgical techniques causing nerve damage
Failing to diagnose Compartment Syndrome and take remedial action
Serious wound infection due to substandard post-operative care
Poorly managed joint replacements, including a failure to advise patients of their options in respect of surgery, together with all the associated risks
Treatment following sporting injuries

Misdiagnosis, diagnosing errors and delays in making a diagnosis are amongst the most common types of medical negligence claims. This may include both the failure to diagnose a sometimes chronic condition over many years to misdiagnosing an impact injury where symptoms are either not picked up or an incorrect diagnosis is made, for example a fracture being diagnosed as a sprain.

All treatment is likely to carry at least some risk and problems occur on occasions. Simply because those providing treatment failed to diagnose a condition or came to an incorrect diagnosis does not necessarily mean there has been negligence.
To establish negligence, the treatment provider must have done something, which no reasonably competent practitioner would have done.
It is also necessary to establish that this negligence caused the injury.
Independent medical evidence is usually required to provide comment on the standard of treatment given and the injuries sustained.

Some of the more common types of claim include:

Delays in diagnosis of cancer where all the evidence suggests an earlier diagnosis was possible. Recovery rates and survival chances may depend upon the speed of the diagnosis.
Failures of GPs and out of hour’s health care providers to diagnose and treat symptoms, such as failing to arrange for a patient to have more specialist treatment at a hospital.
Misdiagnosis in A&E Departments such as missed fractures. Due to lack of supervision by senior staff members, inexperienced and junior doctors may review x-rays, diagnosing a sprain or making no diagnosis because they fail to see the fracture. On some occasions, they may even fail to request x-rays.
Failure to diagnose fractures and recommending the patient mobilise or has physiotherapy thereby exacerbating the original injury.

Failing to make a correct diagnosis and recommending inappropriate follow up treatment, such as referring a patient to the wrong discipline of consultant causing a delay in the patient receiving the correct treatment.

Dental treatment is sometimes daunting enough without the added concern of avoidable problems occurring due to the negligence of the dentist. It may lead to serious and long-lasting consequences, with patients sometimes facing huge costs to rectify the negligent treatment they have received.

All dental treatment is likely to carry at least some risk and problems can occur on occasions. Simply because something may have gone wrong during your treatment does not necessarily mean there has been negligence on the part of the dentist.
To establish negligence, the dentist must have done something, which no reasonably competent practitioner would have done.
It is also necessary to establish that this negligence caused the injury.
Sometimes, this may be straightforward, particularly where an obvious error has occurred such as the extraction of the wrong tooth, but often it is more complex as opinions may differ about the quality of the treatment received or even whether it was necessary.
Independent medical evidence is usually required to provide comment on the standard of treatment given and the injuries sustained.

Some of the more common types of claim include:

Delayed or incorrect diagnosis, such as a failure to detect oral cancers
Failure to monitor progressive gum disease by either visual examination or gentle probing of the teeth leading to loss of teeth
Failure to treat oral abscesses
Careless work such as fractures of adjacent teeth or nerve damage during tooth extraction or problems arising from root canal work such as incorrect positioning of root canal filling
Drug usage error, where a patient is given an incorrect quantity of a drug causing possible long-term consequences

When an operation or medical treatment goes seriously wrong, it may result in the death of a patient. The rules on who is able to claim, the amounts sought and procedure to follow is complicated. It may also involve an Inquest before a Coroner to determine the facts surrounding the death.

If a loved one has died following negligent medical treatment or care, then specific relatives of the person who died may be able to pursue a claim for financial compensation.

Sadly, people die following surgery or other medical procedures. It does not necessarily mean there has been negligence.
To establish negligence, those providing treatment must have done something which no reasonably competent practitioner would have done.
It is also necessary to establish that this negligence caused the death of the patient.
Once this is established, limited dependents of the deceased are able to make a claim for bereavement damages, currently set at £12,980.
Those entitled to claim include a husband or wife of the deceased and the parents of a child who died when under the age of 18.
Any parent of a child over 18, children of a deceased parent and other relatives of the deceased are not entitled to bereavement damages but may pursue a claim for loss of dependency.
Any person dependent upon the deceased may be entitled to damages for the loss of that dependency, plus any losses arising from the death including the funeral costs.
Those entitled to claim is extended to include an ex husband or wife, current and ex civil partners, anyone living with the deceased as a husband or wife for at least two years prior to the death, a parent of the deceased, a person who was treated by the deceased as their parent, a child of the deceased, or even a brother, sister, uncle, aunt, niece, nephew or cousin of the deceased who is able to show any loss of dependency.

In certain specified circumstances, a Coroner may call for an Inquest to establish the facts leading to and the cause of death. An Inquest is not to determine blame for the death.

The Coroner will preside over the Inquest, examining the evidence, including any Post Mortem and question witnesses to determine the cause of death. Any family member or interested party may attend the Inquest or have legal representation to put questions to the witnesses.

If the coroner feels that the results of the Inquest indicate that steps are required to prevent similar incidents in the future, they may draw attention to this in any decision. This can often be helpful when considering a possible claim for medical negligence.

There has been a huge increase in patients undergoing cosmetic and plastic surgery. Unfortunately, with such an increase has come a reduction in the quality of treatment. Sometimes, surgeons may have little or no specialist training in the procedure in which they advertise their services.

All cosmetic surgery is likely to carry at least some risk and problems can occur on occasions. Simply because something went wrong during your treatment does not necessarily mean there has been negligence on the part of those providing the treatment.
To establish negligence, the surgeon must have done something no reasonably competent practitioner would have done and this caused the injury. An independent medical expert is usually required to provide their views on the standard of the treatment received.
It is important to remain realistic. A good surgeon will be honest about the potential outcome, exploring any expectations and informing you of the limits of the procedure.
The Care Standards Act 2002 introduced minimum standards to regulate private clinics and to ensure all practitioners were appropriately recruited, trained and qualified. Patients must be offered counselling and a two-week cooling off period before undergoing treatment. Notably, the act only applies to doctors registering after 1st April 2002.

Some of the more common types of claim include:

Breast implants, uplift and reduction surgery resulting in excessive scarring
Failures of surgeons to provide a full explanation of all the risks of surgery and not obtaining proper informed consent to undergo a procedure
Obtrusive scarring following procedures such as tummy tucks, face-lifts and rhinoplasty
Poor results and nerve damage for facial surgery such as chemical peels and facelifts
Liposuction, gastric balloons and lap bands, resulting in internal injuries
Cosmetic surgical procedures to the hair, teeth, eyes, lips and other body parts

The GP practice is often our first contact when we are ill or require general medical advice. For the vast amount of time, GPs provide an invaluable and exemplary service, but on occasions, mistakes occur and the consequences can be as devastating as any other form of medical negligence.

GPs manage day-to-day problems and should know when to refer on a patient for more specialist treatment, but simply because the GP has failed to diagnose a condition or made an incorrect diagnosis does not necessarily mean there has been negligence on their part.
To establish negligence, the GP must have done something, which no reasonably competent practitioner would have done and this caused the injury. An independent medical expert is usually required to provide their views on the standard of the treatment provided by the GP.

Some of the more common reasons for GP negligence include:

Misdiagnosis of serious illnesses and conditions. Some of the more devastating consequences can arise where the GP has failed to refer the patient to hospital, for example to seek urgent medical or surgical intervention that would have saved the patient’s life.
Misdiagnosis in children, such as diagnosing meningitis as flu, as it shares many of the same early symptoms. Other common misdiagnosis in children includes appendicitis and diabetes.
Other errors include delayed or non-diagnosis of a head injury or brain haemorrhage, failure to refer for cancer treatment or other specialist treatment, failing to attend on a home visit where one should have been made or poor record keeping leading to incorrect treatment.
Prescribing wrong or excess medication or a drug to which the patient is allergic or causes an adverse reaction when taken with other drugs, plus a failure to warn of any side effects.

The provision of out of hours GP services is increasingly coming under scrutiny, often with care provided by GPs who may not have previously practised in the UK and in the worst examples, may not be fully qualified to perform the tasks expected of them.

The very fact a patient may need mental health care usually means they are at their most vulnerable and often require the highest possible standard of care. Occasionally, problems arise and the consequences can be devastating and long lasting.

Simply because something may have gone wrong or problems occurred during the treatment does not necessarily mean there has been negligence on the part of those providing the care.
To establish negligence, those providing the treatment must have done something, which no reasonably competent practitioner would have done and this caused the injury.
An independent medical expert is usually required to provide their views on the standard of the treatment received.
Occasionally, we may need to appoint a Litigation Friend to act on the client’s behalf if they do not have the capacity to provide us with adequate instructions. The client’s best interests are paramount in making such a decision.

Some of the more common types of claim include:

Injuries or even suicides by patients absconding from secure care
Excess use of medication and other pharmaceuticals whilst a patient is in psychiatric care
Failure to provide secure psychiatric care where there was a requirement for such a provision, leading to a patient self-harming or even committing suicide
Where detention or supervision under the Mental Health Act 1983 was unduly long
Where the Mental Health Review Tribunal has found fault with the care

It is the responsibility of any company manufacturing drugs or medical appliances to ensure their products are effective and have as few side effects as possible. Where products fail, medical problems can be exacerbated or even become fatal.

The Consumer Protection Act 1987 imposes strict liability so that when someone suffers an injury or dies following the use of a defective medical product, it is possible to seek compensation without having to show the producer was negligent.
It is still a requirement to show the product was defective, that the defect caused the injury and the injuries did not arise by misuse of the product. An independent medical expert is often required to comment on these and other issues.
The Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency run by the government investigates all medicines and medical devices to ensure they are reasonably safe to use.
No product is risk-free. Some risks may be known when a medicine is first licensed or medical device first used. However, some information only becomes known as more people use the product.

Some of the more common types of claim include:

Defective medical devices including hip and knee joints, heart valves or cosmetic implants
Other devices used as part of personal care or medical treatments such as contact lens solutions, laser hair removal systems or chemical treatments
Products used in the course of treatment such as latex gloves and other surgical instruments, the use of faulty or infected blood in transfusions
Pharmaceuticals and medicines, including faulty contraceptive devices

It is always vital to prescribe and dispense the correct type and quantity of any drug. The consequences of a patient taking the wrong type or an excess amount of a drug can be severe, in some cases leading to the death of the patient due to an overdose or an allergic reaction.

The taking of any drug carries at least some risk and occasionally problems occur. Simply because something has gone wrong does not necessarily mean those who prescribed or dispensed the drug are at fault.
To establish negligence on their part they must have done something no reasonably competent practitioner would have done and this caused the injury. An independent medical expert is usually required to provide their views on the standard of treatment given.
GPs or hospital doctors may make mistakes by writing the wrong prescription or by a high street chemist giving out the wrong drug.
It can lead to a patient receiving incorrect treatment, thereby worsening existing symptoms and receiving a drug causing an adverse reaction creating additional complications.

Some of the more common types of claim include:

GPs incorrectly writing up the dose of a drug, leading to a patient receiving an overdose.
Over prescribing to children, usually in prescribing them an adult dose or without considering their age and weight to determine a safe dosage.
GPs prescribing medication repeatedly for many years without considering whether a repeat prescription is actually suitable for the patient, leading to injury or chronic addiction.
Dispensing errors at the chemist if the GP has made an error in the spelling of a drug’s name or has not written the name clearly.
Drugs given to the wrong patient or administered incorrectly, for example intravenously instead of intramuscularly or a combination of drugs causing an allergic reaction.

Thankfully, the vast majority of pregnancies pass without complications, but occasionally things go wrong during antenatal care or birth and may lead to ongoing injuries to the mother and baby. Although rare, the consequences can be devastating and life changing, in the worst examples leading to death or serious long-term injuries such as Cerebral Palsy.

Pregnancy and childbirth carries at least some risk and unavoidable problems may occur. It does not automatically mean there has been fault on the part of those providing treatment.
To establish negligence, the treatment provider must have done something no reasonably competent practitioner would have done and this caused the injury. An independent expert is usually required to provide their views on the standard of treatment received.

Some of the more common types of claim include:

For mothers suffering injuries during Caesarean sections, vaginal tears, fissures, retained swabs, the use of medical instruments and anaesthetics or failure to manage pre-eclampsia.
Other examples include injuries such as perforation of internal organs from gynaecological treatment during the fitting of a contraceptive device or termination of a pregnancy.
Wrongful birth where a baby is conceived despite a sterilisation or contraceptive procedure.
For babies suffering injuries such as fractures to the shoulder, arm and collarbone or cuts and scarring during labour, or later failure to diagnose hip dysplasia.
Failure to detect serious abnormalities of the unborn baby during scanning.
Negligence is not always the cause of Cerebral Palsy or brain injuries in babies, but some errors are avoidable, including the baby spending too long in the birth canal, failure to monitor foetal heart rate, not performing a Caesarean section, failure to detect the umbilical cord is around the baby’s neck and an improper use of forceps or suction cap.

The effectiveness of surgical procedures for the eyes has advanced rapidly in recent years, but with an increase in the amount and range of operations performed, comes new risks. Patients often pay privately to correct conditions such as long or short-sightedness. It is an expensive option and a patient should expect to receive such treatment without unnecessary and avoidable complications.

All treatment particularly to such a sensitive area of the body carries at least some risk and occasionally problems can occur. It does not automatically mean there has been negligence on the part of those providing treatment.
To establish negligence the treatment must have fallen below a standard a reasonably competent practitioner would have provided and this caused the injury. An independent expert is usually required to provide their views on the standard of treatment received.
A claim may lie against an optician or ophthalmologist for failure to detect or treat a condition in the eyes. Early detection and treatment can often be the difference in a patient preserving their eyesight.

Some of the more common types of claim include:

Vision correction surgery or Lasik, Lasek and PRK, including a failure to conduct a suitable pre-operative assessment. Some patients may not be suitable candidates for treatment and there should be a thorough scanning of a patient’s previous medical history. Errors can then occur due to poor surgical techniques.
Failure to recognise or treat conditions of retinal detachment. Early diagnosis and treatment is vital for the patient to have a chance of preserving their eyesight.
Failure to recognise or treat glaucoma that can result in reduced vision or blindness.
Errors during cataract surgery due to faulty surgical techniques or the insertion of the wrong type of lens, often arising from an incorrect or ineffective preoperative assessment.

In recent years there has been much publicity given to outbreaks in hospitals of infections or “superbugs” such as MRSA and C Difficile. Standards of care and hygiene in UK hospitals remains high, however such infections have regrettably become commonplace. Patients suffering infections are at high risk of long-term health problems or even death.

If you have contracted an infection whilst in an NHS or Private hospital, you may be able to bring a claim.

Where there has been an outbreak of an infection in a hospital there is no automatic right to compensation.
Infections such as MRSA and C Difficile are present in the wider community, but there are strict rules in place in hospitals to minimise such outbreaks.
You must show there has been a failure to follow these rules due to the hospital staff’s negligence, that this has caused the outbreak of the infection and any injury arising.
Steps to help minimise outbreaks include hospital staff regularly washing their hands using antibacterial soap and then drying on disposable towels, thoroughly cleaning medical equipment, isolating and restricting access to those infected, staff wearing protective clothing whilst treating patients and cleaning and disinfecting the site of any outbreak.

Some of the more common types of claim include:

Where steps have not been taken to follow the correct procedure, for example poor standards of hygiene and cleaning in the hospital or poor and substandard of nursing care.
Delays in recognising and treating infections.
Inappropriate treatment and hospitals proceeding with elective surgery, such as orthopaedic operations despite a known outbreak of infection.
Failure to screen for MRSA and C Difficile when admitting patients to hospital.
Simple lack of medical care, for example inappropriate wound care, inappropriate antibiotics or failure to monitor treatment correctly or adequately.