A patient who was discharged from an Emergency Department with a fracture of his cervical spine has recovered £100,000 damages from the Hospital responsible for his care.
In 2021, the patient, then aged in his late 40s, sustained injury as a consequence of an accident whilst participating in sporting activities.
The patient was transferred to the local Emergency Department where he presented with neck pain, back pain and shoulder pain. X-ray examination was undertaken of the head and neck, which demonstrated a fracture of the neck. Unfortunately the report on the scan did not indicate the presence of the fracture and the patient was discharged home.
Whilst a subsequent revision of the report was received the same evening, this was not communicated to the patient or treating clinicians. Ultimately he reattended with his General Practitioner some 9 days later due to increasing pain in his neck and a sensation of pins and needles in his arm and hand. The GP, having checked the online records and noting the C6 fracture, which was identified in the subsequent radiological report, referred the patient to Belfast where further imaging demonstrated not only an unstable fracture, but also a vertebral artery dissection and a cerebellar infarct (stroke). The patient was taken to Theatre where surgery was undertaken to stabilise the fracture and decompress the artery.
The patient contended that his treatment was negligent and substandard. He instructed Patrick Mullarkey of O’Reilly Stewart (Healthcare) Solicitors to investigate the matter on his behalf. We commissioned independent medical evidence from a variety of independent experts including a Neuroradiologist, a Neurosurgeon, a Neurologist, a Psychiatrist, and a Neuropsychologist.
The patient contended that he had been caused to suffer significant injury to his neck requiring surgeries which would otherwise not have been required had appropriate care been taken at the first presentation. Not only did the patient undergo an initial surgical repair of the unstable fracture, that surgery required a re-do due to an unsatisfactory outcome. As a consequence of same, the patient would have avoided surgical scars. We also argued that the patient would have avoided the stroke and the symptoms which arose thereafter. The patient suffered a significant psychological upset as a consequence of the substandard care, and this too was recognised as part of the settlement. Whilst the incident impacted upon the Plaintiff’s work and earnings, it did not do so on a long term basis.
Having thoroughly investigated the injury, proceedings were issued on behalf of the patient, and the matter was listed for trial. In accordance with the usual case management preparation, medical evidence was exchanged between the parties and this led to discussions with a view to settlement. Happily, the matter settled on terms agreed between the parties with payment of damages to the Plaintiff together with his full costs.
