01482 778 463
Client Focussed
No Win No Fee
Specialist Legal Teams

Tag Archive: clinical negligence

Inquiry into rogue surgeon Ian Paterson must identify how to better protect patients and ensure they can be compensated

Ian Paterson


Having acted for a number of people who were patients of the rogue consultant breast surgeon Ian Paterson, we certainly welcome the national inquiry which has been announced by the Government this week.

Certainly, serious questions need to be asked, especially given that Paterson was not suspended from his position until eight years after concerns were first raised.

Paterson, who worked at the Heart of England NHS foundation trust (HEFT), also practised privately at Spire Parkway and Spire Little Aston.

He was found guilty of 17 counts of wounding patients with intent and jailed for 20 years in August, having carried out needless surgery on patients who were left traumatised and scarred.

The inquiry is set to look into the reasons for the delays in stopping the unacceptable practices of this surgeon, and crucially question if more could and should have been done to protect the hundreds of patients he saw.

As compensation lawyers who support victims of medical negligence every day, we see the need for such matters to be fully investigated. It is only by doing so that the public’s faith in the medical profession can be restored in some way.

Are inspection regimes strong enough to detect rogue and poor performing health professionals?

Paterson was the man committing the crimes and has rightly been sentenced, but how and why was he able to get away with it for so long without being detected and stopped?

The Government says the scope of the investigation will include the independent sector, and it is set to examine whether the Care Quality Commission’s (CQC) inspection regime needs to be strengthened.

It has certainly been a costly situation. The NHS has now paid out almost £10m in compensation to more than 250 patients, and Spire healthcare agreed in September to settle a further 750 cases.

In my view, the investigation certainly needs to and look at whether surgeons are still today being allowed to work in isolation and whether enough is being done to spot health professionals who may be a danger to patients early enough.

The reasons for the delay in stopping unacceptable behaviour must be a major focus – and the findings should be publically revealed so that all who played a part in allowing this scandal to happen are held to account. This should hopefully ensure lessons are learned to prevent something like this happening again.

From our perspective, when things do go wrong we always look for the quickest route to right the wrongs for our clients, aiming to obtain full compensation to help them get back to the position they were before they were injured, as far as money is able to achieve that.

One of the key reasons for the delays in paying compensation to our clients in this case has been the initial indication from Paterson’s own Medical Defence Organisation, the MDU, that the indemnity cover they were providing did not actually cover all of his actions as a surgeon.

This resulted in years of delays as specialised lawyers tried to extend every legal principle in the book in a search for other organisations and bodies to hold to account for his actions.

We will therefore be following the inquiry with interest to see what sort of recommendations are made in relation to arrangements for medical indemnity cover for clinicians in the independent sector to cover all aspects of medical and cosmetic treatment.

It is simply not acceptable for patients to suffer so badly, and then find there is no individual or organisation willing to accept responsibility and provide them the compensation they fully deserve and need.

Protecting patients must be the priority.

Read More

11/12/2017 No Comments

Compensation for mum who missed bonding time with new son following hospital’s ‘hazardous’ medication error

Newborn baby feet on mother


A mother says she missed ‘irreplaceable’ bonding time with her new-born son during the first few months of his life as mistakes by doctors left her taking a mix of medication causing anxiety and hallucinations.

Emma Houghton, 41, from Portsmouth, had enjoyed a smooth pregnancy and a problem-free caesarean birth as she and her husband Benjamin welcomed their son Noel into the world.

However, after returning home, Mrs Houghton began suffering severe anxiety, insomnia, memory loss, tremors, sweating, vomiting and hallucinations, with the symptoms lasting around three months.

Solicitors acting on her behalf in a legal claim against Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust, which runs the Queen Alexandra Hospital where Mrs Houghton had Noel and was treated in the weeks afterwards, claimed medication she had been prescribed left her ‘filled with anxiety and ill health’ and unable to bond properly with her son.

The problems began when Mrs Houghton suffered “excruciating” pain in her chest days after returning home.

Doctors believed it to be musculoskeletal related to the birth and prescribed her with Tramadol in a bid to ease her suffering – a drug which should not have been suggested as she was already taking Imipramine to tackle anxiety and panic attacks.

The combination of the two drugs is noted as being “potentially hazardous” in the British National Formulary pharmaceutical reference book.

Medication made new mum feel ‘anxious and spaced out’

Having started taking the medication, Mrs Houghton says she immediately began to feel anxious and ‘spaced out’, and says it was only after seeking advice from a psychiatrist, and having made further trips to the hospital, that she realised the error had been made.

“When I started taking the Tramadol, my anxiety was so extreme and I couldn’t do anything with Noel,” she said.

“Within a couple of hours, I thought I could see a cat in the garden and I was completely tripping out and hallucinating. I was spaced out. Feeling like that would normally scare me, but I was so out of it, I thought it was okay.

“After 10 days of feeling like this on the Tramadol, I couldn’t take any more. I knew I wasn’t bonding with my baby so I stopped taking it, cold turkey. Within 24 hours, my anxiety was through the roof. I felt like I did before I started taking my medication and it was overwhelming, shear panic, and I couldn’t eat or sleep.

“I went to see my psychiatrist after speaking to him on the phone twice and not once did he relate my symptoms to postnatal depression or anxiety. He said it was all down to the Tramadol. He looked it up and it was a very hazardous combination with Imipramine.

“I was gutted as it had been a medical error that had made such an impact on my life and my first weeks with Noel.

“The pain I experienced was extreme. I don’t want to be on anxiety medication and want to be more in control of it as it comes on for no reason at all. It’s a chemical imbalance and all I can do is live a healthy lifestyle.”

Damages awarded to reflect impact on mum in early months of son’s life

Mrs Houghton has now been awarded £3,000 damages following her legal claim through medical negligence specialists Hudgell Solicitors.

She says she missed out on crucial time with Noel in the first few weeks of his life, as she was unable to breastfeed and do any more than simply hold him.

“On the first full day I breastfed him once, we were worried he wasn’t going to come round. It was the scariest thing ever, so I stopped and put him on formula,” she said.

“I could hold him but there wasn’t any bonding and I couldn’t breastfeed. I was really disappointed because I really enjoyed breastfeeding and looking after him and those early months of bonding are irreplaceable.

“For the first few weeks, I was very angry, upset and emotional. It was horrific. It wasn’t until I went back to A&E about my pain a few weeks later that I realised how big an error had been made. I told one of the doctors what I’d been prescribed and he couldn’t believe it.

“It was heart-breaking to know it was someone else’s fault when I had taken every precaution possible and that a medical professionals didn’t take the time to check.”

Legal claim highlighted medication error and failure to recognise likely adverse reaction

The legal claim against the Trust alleged it had unreasonably prescribed Tramadol to Mrs Houghton while she was taking Imipramine, failed to note the adverse reaction it could cause and instead had incorrectly advised her it would not be a problem.

It was also alleged the Trust failed to obtain Mrs Houghton’s informed consent for the prescription, as she would have refused it if she’d known how it could affect her, failed to arrange a follow-up appointment and failed to keep a reasonable record of the consultation.

As a result, it was alleged she suffered anxiety for three months, as well as other symptoms including insomnia, memory loss, tremors, sweating, vomiting and increased hallucinations, inability to bond with her son, and a delay in reducing her Imipramine prescription.

The Trust admitted breach of duty in prescribing and administering Tramadol while she was taking Imipramine, but denied the Tramadol caused a relapse of her illness, offering the £3,000 settlement out of court.

Patient urges other new mums to take care with all medication

Mrs Houghton now wants other patients to learn from her case and be vigilant when being prescribed any medication.

“I don’t want anyone else to go through this. It might not occur again but I wanted to hold someone liable for the time I lost bonding with my son. It should have been a happy time. My son is beautiful and funny, and we are very thankful for everything we have,” she said.

“It was well documented in my notes that I was taking Imipramine. I saw my psychiatrist before and during my pregnancy to check if there was anything I needed to be aware of regarding my medication and I followed everything I was supposed to do.

“I’m so cautious with everything, even cough medicines, and I would rather break every bone in my body than have anxiety again, but you trust a hospital where you give birth to be right.”

Mrs Houghton, a divisional sales manager for an international beauty and fashion company, said the pain she had experienced following the birth of Noel, now 22 months, was eventually attributed to a car accident she had been involved in two weeks before he was born.

She said doctors believed the muscles affected had been protected by Noel and the pain only surfaced once he had been born.

Legal case resulted in damages and apology from Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust

Nicola Downey, of Hudgell Solicitors, coordinated Mrs Houghton’s case and says she hopes the admission of breach of duty by the Trust goes some way to acknowledging the serious errors made.

She said: “Having a baby, especially your first, is a huge event in your life and can often bring about a range of different emotions and feelings.

“Mrs Houghton was acutely aware of how her anxiety affected her and rightly asked questions about how medication could affect her while she was pregnant and still taking Imipramine.

“Unfortunately, the prescription of Tramadol had such an adverse effect, it affected her ability to properly bond with her son in those vital early stages.

“What should have been a time of joy and happiness was instead filled with anxiety and ill health as a result of this medication error.

“I’m pleased Mrs Houghton now has the admissions she wanted and can move forward knowing we have reached this outcome.”

In legal correspondence, the Trust said it empathised with Mrs Houghton at “what must have been a very distressful time” for her, and said it was “very sorry for the error”.

Mrs Houghton, who says she would like to have another baby, praised Hudgell Solicitors for their support in challenging her care and said she was grateful for Nicola’s care and compassion throughout the case.

She said: “Nicola has been perfect throughout everything and very understanding.

“She was one of the most sympathetic people in terms of listening and understanding, and I would recommend her to anybody should they suffer in a similar way.

“Now, I want to move on but I still remain angry that someone else impacted on my future with my son because of their negligence.”

Related News 

Portsmouth News 

Read More

07/08/2017 No Comments

£100,000 damages for grandmother who had to go under knife three times due to hospital’s hip replacement error



A health trust has paid £100,000 damages to a patient after doctors needed three attempts to correctly complete her hip replacement.

Suzanne Harvey, 59, had to go under the knife three times in the space of eight days.

As part of a successful legal claim against Calderdale and Huddersfield NHS Foundation Trust, it was alleged the errors caused the grandmother of 15 to suffer long-term problems which would have been avoided had the initial operation been completed successfully.

Ms Harvey’s new hip dislocated as she was being moved from her hospital trolley back to her bed following her operation at Calderdale Royal Hospital, West Yorkshire.

It meant she had to return to theatre the following day to have her new hip relocated, but this once again proved unsuccessful, with doctors noting in the days following that she still required further “revision surgery” as her hip was deemed “unstable”.

The matter was finally successfully resolved eight days after the original operation, but came at an extra cost according to independent medical experts who were consulted by medical negligence claims specialists Hudgell Solicitors.

It was alleged as part of the legal case that had the hip been correctly inserted and the dislocation avoided, Ms Harvey would have been mobile after one to two days and walking on crutches and sticks over an eight to 10-week period.

Instead, it was claimed she had made a poor recovery and, as a result of the dislocation, had developed chronic post-surgical pain and hip dysfunction, which in turn has caused additional pressure on her knees, left hip and back.

The solicitors suggested these issues, including the need for a total left knee replacement, were brought forward by two to three years as a result of the errors made in hospital, leaving Ms Harvey with an increased perception of pain.

Operation was supposed to be ‘answer to prayers’ but became ‘a nightmare’

Ms Harvey had suffered with arthritis for more than three decades and was convinced a hip replacement would solve her ongoing pain problems, but said the ordeal, in 2012, had changed her life completely.

She was awarded £100,000 compensation, but still faces a further hip replacement procedure within the next four years due to her replacement’s lifespan, an operation she says she is now terrified to have.

She said: “I’ve had hip pain for many years and I researched replacements and thought the good outweighed the bad. I thought this was going to be the answer to my prayers but the whole thing has been a nightmare.

“I felt my hip dislocate when they moved me after the first operation. I have never experienced pain like it. Another patient said she will never forget the noise I made for the rest of her life. I was hysterical. I ended up having three operations and three general anaesthetics.

“I couldn’t walk properly for about six months and I needed help at home. It has changed my life completely since.

“The replacement was supposed to get me back on my feet. Instead, I’m like a hermit and I only go out when my family takes me. I don’t feel safe going on my own. I’m so young at heart, but my body is in bits. It’s unbelievable.

“I feel disgusted, hurt and frightened because I now know I need to have another hip replacement, but I don’t want it. I still have nightmares and flashbacks, and I wake up screaming about what the pain was like. I can walk but I’m in constant pain and I’ll be on painkillers for the rest of my life.

“I feel fed up a lot and I feel like a prisoner because I can’t walk far. I used to go out every weekend and two or three times during the week, but I rarely go into town now.

“All I ever wanted from taking legal action was a genuine face-to-face apology, but I’ve never had one. I’ve felt like a number, not a patient, and £100,000 still isn’t an apology.”

Trust admits breach of duty causing dislocation need for extra surgery

Reports by independent medical experts said Ms Harvey could have expected to have regained reasonable hip function within five to six months and would not have suffered chronic post-surgical pain, as well as other health problems, had the initial operation been completed successfully.

They also said her right hip replacement would have had a normal 15-year lifespan, rather than the eight to 10-year lifespan her current hip has.

It was also alleged Ms Harvey suffered an avoidable eight-day period of pain and distress, including having two more avoidable surgical procedures and treatment in an abduction brace.

Calderdale and Huddersfield NHS Foundation Trust admitted breach of duty, accepting liability for the dislocation of Ms Harvey’s hip and the need for revision surgery as a result, offering the £100,000 settlement as damages.

‘Errors were completely unacceptable’

Solicitor Tasmin White, of Hudgell Solicitors, represented Ms Harvey in the case.

She said: “This was a horrendous experience for Ms Harvey which did not simply cause upset and pain at the time but has continued to have a long-lasting impact on her quality of life.

“It is completely unacceptable for such avoidable errors to be made. Put simply, this case was about the failure to ensure the hip replacement was done correctly the first time. The hospital trust admits there was a breach of the duty of care owed to Ms Harvey. 

“Having to undergo any form of surgery is a big decision and can be a traumatic time for a patient, so to go through an operation, then suffer agonising pain from a dislocation and then have to face two more surgical procedures is shocking. It is perhaps not surprising that Ms Harvey is reluctant about any future surgery on her hip.

“The initial hip replacement operation should have been the answer to her problems. Instead it has caused years more pain and discomfort.

“It’s been a long process to get the compensation Ms Harvey deserves, and she has been so patient throughout. I’m relieved it’s over for her now and that she is happy with the outcome.”

Read More

04/08/2017 No Comments

Survey highlights Brits’ concerns over medical misdiagnosis– but a fifth admit they won’t question GPs or specialists

Medical negligence


Unhappy patients say misdiagnosis of conditions leading to their illnesses getting worse and being given the wrong course of treatment are their biggest frustrations when seeing GPs and specialists.

A quarter of people (25%) questioned about their medical care said they felt their doctors simply didn’t give them enough time at their appointments, with one in 10 saying they feel a visit to a GP now rarely solves their health problem.

Of those unhappy with their medical care, one in five said it was because their illness had worsened after being misdiagnosed by a medical professional.

More than a quarter of those unhappy (26%) said they felt they had been given the wrong treatment, with 29% feeling medical professionals had simply failed to recognise their illness.

Overall, the vast majority of patients in the UK (86%) say they are happy with their own GP.

Despite a quarter bemoaning the lack of time given to appointments, a reluctance to ‘be a burden on the NHS’, and a belief that their conditions will improve without seeing a doctor has led to 92 per cent of people saying they only visit when they think they really have to.

Brits also admitted to being reluctant when it comes to expressing their concerns over their treatment, with less than one in five (18%) saying they’d feel confident enough to challenge a diagnosis given to them.

The research has been conducted by medical negligence specialists Hudgell Solicitors, who support many patients in cases involving late diagnosis or misdiagnosis of serious conditions.

Caroline Murgatroyd, a clinical negligence specialist at the firm, says the survey results are concerning in that many people have indicated reluctance to see their doctor – and that a high percentage will not ask questions.

She has urged people to visit their GP if they have a health concern.

She said: “What we can see from this research is that, although overall there is quite rightly a great deal of trust placed in medical professionals, there is also a growing reluctance to go to the doctor in the first place, as many people are of the opinion that their appointments are too rushed, they do not wish to trouble the doctor or they believe their illness will simply get better on its own.

“Whilst we don’t want to see doctors’ surgeries full because people are visiting unnecessarily, what we would say is that it is vital that people seek professional medical advice when they notice an unexplained change in their health.

“On top of this, the survey suggests the vast majority of people in the UK feel reluctant to challenge a medical professionals’ diagnosis.

“We see patients and families who have harboured concerns about their treatment for weeks, months and sometimes years. These concerns have all too often been dismissed and a full investigation of the potential cause of the illness has not been carried out.

“If you feel unhappy with a diagnosis from a doctor or specialist we would suggest raising this with your doctor and if you do not receive an adequate explanation it may be worthwhile asking for a second opinion.”

The research findings follow a recent case in which Mary Badham, 65, was referred to a specialist by her own GP after displaying ‘red flag’ symptoms of bowel cancer.

Mary Badham medical misdiagnosis

The specialist dismissed it as Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS), sending her home with tablets and without carrying out a colonoscopy.

Two years later, Mrs Badham was invited to attend Bowel Cancer Screening as part of the national NHS’ screening programme, where she discovered she had cancer and that it was terminal. She died less than three years later, in April 2014, aged 72.

Now, her husband Ron Badham, 79, and son Stephen, say they wish they had insisted tests be carried out, and are urging others to demand further investigation by medical professionals if concerns seem to be too easily dismissed.

They took legal action through Hudgell Solicitors, resulting in the trust which runs the hospital where she was seen admitting its failure to carry out a colonoscopy in 2009 amounted to breach of duty.

Read More

22/08/2016 No Comments

Tighter restrictions over cosmetic surgery industry have been long overdue to better protect patients

woman face injection


 

The increasing popularity of cosmetic surgery in recent years has unfortunately not coincided with better knowledge of the possible dangers amongst patients.

No doubt fuelled by the media obsession with reporting on the latest celebrities having a ‘nip and tuck’ to keep looking their best, cosmetic procedures have increasingly become the choice for thousands of people across the UK.

The figures are astounding, as a record number of 51,000 people in Britain underwent procedures in 2015, up 13 per cent on 2014.

However, a large percentage of those people will have undergone surgery completely unaware of the loose regulations around the industry, meaning those carrying out the work are not required by law to have specialist experience in procedures they perform.

Basically, fail to do your research and ask the key questions, and you run the risk of things going wrong.

Through our work in handling cosmetic surgery compensation claims at Hudgell Solicitors, we see how negligent procedures can have the complete opposite impact on an individual’s life to what they had hoped for.

If things go wrong, a procedure which a patient chooses in a bid to give them greater confidence can actually have a hugely negative impact on their long-term health, appearance, and psychological state.

With that in mind, we certainly welcome new guidelines being introduced by the General Medical Council (GMC) to better protect patients.

It has been announced that new rules, which will cover both surgical and non-surgical procedures, will come into force in June for both private clinics and the NHS in a bid to tackle practitioners who have been putting profits before patients.

Having represented many people who have been the victims of negligent cosmetic surgery, our team of specialists at Hudgell Solicitors have seen first-hand how patients can undergo procedures completely unaware the surgeons they choose have no relevant experience.

We also see cases where the risks and implications of procedures are not fully explained to patients, who find themselves feeling rushed into committing to surgery suggested by the surgeon themselves.

Importantly, the new guidance says doctors must firstly advertise and market their services responsibly, with ‘two for one’ offers – something which is clearly aimed at tempting people into procedures they don’t really need or actually want – thankfully banned.

Patients must also be given time for reflection, ensuring they don’t feel rushed or pressured, whilst doctors and surgeons are also being told that they must seek a patient’s consent themselves, personally discussing it with their patient and not delegating the responsibility.

Full and accurate records of all consultations will also be required, whilst doctors and surgeons will also be required to provide continuity of care, meaning they must make ensure patients know who to contact and how their care will be managed if they experience any complications.

This is a key factor, as aftercare and support is something those putting profit before patients will often fail to provide, leaving patients high and dry when things do go wrong. The GMC says most doctors who do cosmetic procedures do so at a high standard, and that is certainly the case. However, it admits it does ‘sometimes come across poor practice’, warning that those who do not follow the new guidelines risk being struck off the register.

It is hoped the these new measures will put an end to botched and unethical procedures, but only by ensuring these new regulations are strictly administered will they have the desired impact towards reducing the risks in an ever-increasing area of surgery.

Read More

13/04/2016 No Comments

Q&A on Cerebral Palsy cases with Rosamund Rhodes – Kemp

Rosamund Rhodes Kemp


The heart-warming story of US-born Matthew Walzer is a fantastic example of how those live with Cerebral Palsy can live an independent life.

Matthew wrote an open letter to the CEO of Nike, Mark Parker, explaining that a lack of flexibility in his hand muscles led to difficulty in tying his shoe laces. Common symptoms of CP in babies and children include difficulty swallowing, lack of co-ordination, slow speech, a curved spine, and a lack of muscle control.

Matthew suggested that Nike create a brand new trainer that can benefit those with CP and similar disabilities. Amazingly, over a three-year period, Nike created a series of shoes with a revolutionary strap system. Matthew chose not only to accept the challenges of his condition, but to face them too, and find a way to make life easier for himself and others with similar disabilities.

In the UK, an estimated 30,000 children live with CP, and approximately 1 ,800 are diagnosed every year. Of those diagnosed, 20% are due to negligence, whilst the remaining 80% are due to congenital factors or difficulties during pregnancy.

Rosamund Rhodes-Kemp, Head of Clinical Negligence and Personal Injury at Hudgell Solicitors in London, specialises in CP cases including children. She has represented families in many high-profile CP cases and spoke of her experiences in the field:

Q. What made you interested in pursuing complex claimant cases, in particular cerebral palsy?

Rosamund: I nursed children in my previous career and had applied for, and been accepted on, a midwifery course at the John Radcliffe Hospital, when I opted for law instead. I have also been a special needs governor at a primary school for 15 years.As a nurse, you are used to dealing with a multidisciplinary team, and that is exactly what you do with cerebral palsy or other maximum severity cases. If you have a great legal and health professional team, it is often possible to secure an admission of responsibility and then apply for an interim payment, so that the injured person receives compensation before the final settlement and can start to rebuild their lives. Frankly, there is little that is as satisfying in the work that we do.

Q. Do you feel that your experience as a former nurse has given you an insight into these types of medical cases?

Rosamunnd: Undoubtedly. Not least is the knowledge and understanding of medical records and, in cerebral palsy cases particularly, the midwifery and nursing records. It is obviously vital to understand what has been the cause, but equally important to understand what has been missed out and the significance of both. But also understanding complex medical terminology, anatomy, and physiology, and the interaction of drugs. Most importantly though, is how mistakes can happen in any given situation. Picturing yourself in the scene at the time and then working backwards to see what could have been done differently, or what would have avoided the mistake.

These cases are also incredibly stressful and you carry a huge emotional burden for the family throughout the lifetime of the case, and nursing prepares you for that, because you carry the burden of the patient’s anxieties, illness, and recovery when you are looking after them, because they are at their lowest ebb.

Q. What was the most remarkable case related to CP that you have worked on and why?

Rosamund: I am still actually working on my most memorable case! it is memorable for lots of reasons. Firstly, because when it first came into the department I was working in at the time, a colleague of mine put it in the discarded cases pile. I got it out and had a look and thought there was something in it. A few months later, having obtained the records and an expert report, we received full admissions of responsibility from the Trust. It is also memorable because of the complex family dynamics – these have made it particularly challenging and tested every possible area of knowledge, expertise, and diplomacy.

Q. What needs to change regarding prevention and support?

Rosamund: The most common reason for negligently caused cerebral palsy is the misinterpretation of CTG traces, and so priority should be given to regular and high quality teaching on the interpretation of CTGs. Also poor staffing levels and lack of consultant cover.

Moves have been taken to ensure there is 24-hour consultant cover in obstetric units and proper staffing levels, but there is a shortage of midwives and a shortage of funds, and it is going to be difficult to change because training, consultant cover, and staff shortages are all going to necessitate additional funds being made available at a time when NHS resources are stretched to the limit.

However, what I would say is that prevention is far better than trying to deal with the problem when it occurs. The cost of looking after a child with profound cerebral palsy is enormous to society, to the family, and to the NHS. So it is surely better to invest more funds in preventing these tragedies occurring in the first place.

With greater technology and advances in medicine, it is getting easier to detect problems during pregnancy, so that steps can be taken to minimise the risks of labour. But you will still need competent staff and enough of them or risks will still materialise. It also makes economic sense to invest heavily in these children when they are tiny, because they do far better if they are surrounded by a multidisciplinary team, providing support and therapy for all of their needs. So, for example, a team for a profoundly affected child would include:

  • Speech and Language therapy
  • Physiotherapy
  • Occupational therapy
  • Community Nurse
  • Social Services regarding adaptations to housing
  • Paediatrician

The top of the wish list would have to be that every child with cerebral palsy would get some compensation, rather than the lottery, which means that some children, who have been affected by negligence, will get a substantial award, whereas other children get nothing.

 

Read More

11/12/2015 No Comments

Doctors aren’t always right…so patients should be confident questioning care and diagnosis

Childhood Cancer awareness Month


By Lauren Dale, Clinical Negligence Solicitor at Hudgell Solicitors 

When we visit doctors and hospitals with our loved ones, we do so seeking reassurance and clarity. We usually want to know why they have been taken ill, what it means for their health, and what can be done to put them on the mend as soon as possible.

We essentially visit hoping for good news, and thankfully, in most cases, doctors and nurses have the answers we crave.

Read More

14/09/2015 No Comments

Career insight: working as a solicitor

Students and graduates trying to build a career in law can often feel overwhelmed by the competition. We asked two of our solicitors to share their experience and advice for those hoping to work in the legal sector.

Hayley Collinson and Simon Wilson are both solicitors at Neil Hudgell. Simon acts as joint Head of Clinical Negligence, dealing with both medical and dental negligence claims. Similarly, Hayley Collinson is a solicitor from our clinical negligence team.

Read More

30/06/2015 No Comments

Surgeons and doctors likely to cause road accidents due to stress and tiredness



By Jane Woodcock, Senior Legal Executive, Neil Hudgell Solicitors

INTERESTING research has linked ‘stressful occupations’ with dangerous driving – with a new survey suggesting surgeons and doctors are more often at fault for accidents on the UK’s roads than those working in other, less demanding jobs.

Analysis compiled by Moneysupermarket.com found nine of the 10 occupations that cause the most accidents on the road to be medical workers.

For every 1,000 surgeons who drive a car, a total of 361 made an at fault claim over the past five years. In second place were GPs, who made 333 at-fault claims, the survey claims.

Read More

11/09/2014 No Comments

Could Scottish independence improve the NHS?



Former Labour government minister, Peter Kilfoyle, has broken party ranks to endorse the campaign for Scottish independence, amid growing claims that a “yes” vote in the upcoming referendum will protect the country’s NHS from privatisation throughout the UK.

Mr Kilfoyle, the former Liverpool Walton MP, suggested that the Labour leadership’s opposition to independence was merely motivated by self-preservation and that nationalists in Scotland were pushing a message which was “positive and aspirational”.

This endorsement was warmly welcomed by Alex Salmond, Scotland’s First Minister, who has argued that only independence could protect the Scottish NHS from the UK government’s “privatisation agenda”.

The NHS is fully devolved to the Scottish Parliament, but Mr Salmond believes that cuts to its budget south of the border “automatically triggers cuts in Scotland”.

Mr Salmond claimed that nothing the UK government was proposing would “even come close” to addressing the scale of the problem, claiming that the UK now has the highest levels of regional inequality in the European Union.

Speaking at his final speech in England before September’s referendum, he outlined his vision of an exemplary independent Scotland that would provide a benchmark for those elsewhere in the UK, who are looking at ways to change the current system to something that is more sustainable and more resilient than the one currently being pursued at Westminster.

Most recently, Scotland’s former top doctor, Sir Harry Burns, suggested independence could mean a better health service for Scots, as the nation would be able to engage more directly with local and central government. In addition to being in control of its own finances, Scotland would be able to offer a more tailored service, with thorough care and fewer cases of medical negligence, which has cost the NHS in Scotland more than £200 million in six years.

Sir Harry Burns, who recently stepped down as Scotland’s chief medical officer, believes that if people in a newly independent country were to feel more in control of their lives, it would have a positive impact on their health.

With the referendum to decide Scotland’s future less than two months away, such comments will be greatly welcomed by supporters of the Yes campaign.

Read More

24/07/2014 No Comments

Looking to see if you're eligible?

Get in touch for free legal advice

0808 159 7699

Call today to speak to an expert

OR
Start your claim

What Our Clients Think

trustpilot-star trustpilot-star trustpilot-star trustpilot-star trustpilot-star

Great customer service

"Great customer service Tasmin was very helpful Updated me on a regular basis Thanks for… "

Mr D Scannell

trustpilot-star trustpilot-star trustpilot-star trustpilot-star trustpilot-star

Caroline was great in handling my case

"Caroline was great in handling my case, very informative and always kept me up to… "

Mr Richard Brook

trustpilot-star trustpilot-star trustpilot-star trustpilot-star trustpilot-star

Dispute with EasyJet

"Although Hudgell offices were not local to us, there was no need for concern, as… "

Glyn

trustpilot-star trustpilot-star trustpilot-star trustpilot-star trustpilot-star

Always on the ball

"Always on the ball! Great at what they do, very professional and fast with a… "

CHRISTOPHER CURTIS

trustpilot-star trustpilot-star trustpilot-star trustpilot-star trustpilot-star

Excellent service

"Excellent service. Very happy with result. Thank you."

Miss Erika Panakova

trustpilot-star trustpilot-star trustpilot-star trustpilot-star trustpilot-star

Was an easy process and the caseworker…

"Was an easy process and the caseworker was very informative and very knowledgeable on my… "

Rachel Fee

trustpilot-star trustpilot-star trustpilot-star trustpilot-star trustpilot-star

Lovely business to deal with

"Lovely business to deal with. Would recommend to anyone."

Mrs Kelly Byrnes

trustpilot-star trustpilot-star trustpilot-star trustpilot-star

Great communication

"Great communication! My solicitor was lovely to deal with, open and listened to me."

Sue Ockendon

trustpilot-star trustpilot-star trustpilot-star trustpilot-star trustpilot-star

Very happy with how they managed my…

"Very happy with how they managed my claim. I would recommend them."

Mr Steve Roberts

trustpilot-star trustpilot-star trustpilot-star trustpilot-star trustpilot-star

Very helpful and truly understanding in…

"Very helpful and truly understanding in a very sensitive case would highly recommend to anyone"

Miss Sarah Morris

trustpilot-star trustpilot-star trustpilot-star trustpilot-star trustpilot-star

Friendly

"Friendly, supportive and professional, couldn't ask for more."

Mr Adrian Fisher

trustpilot-star trustpilot-star trustpilot-star trustpilot-star trustpilot-star

A first class service with a heart too

"I never had claimed before and was quite apprehensive about dealing with claims solicitors as… "

M Sheikh

trustpilot-star trustpilot-star trustpilot-star trustpilot-star trustpilot-star

They made me feel that I wouldn’t be on…

"They made me feel that I wouldn’t be on my own after my experience. They… "

Mrs Melinda Diane Tovey

trustpilot-star trustpilot-star trustpilot-star trustpilot-star trustpilot-star

The service was excellent and Lauren…

"The service was excellent and Lauren Cartwright kept me well informed and gave good advice… "

Mr Roger Harrison

trustpilot-star trustpilot-star trustpilot-star trustpilot-star trustpilot-star

Recommended company

"Excellent service, fully recommended. Efficient communication and reliable."

Mr R Taylor

trustpilot-star trustpilot-star trustpilot-star trustpilot-star

Hudgell took over my road traffic case…

"Hudgell took over my road traffic case from a different solicitors and successfully negotiated a… "

Mr JSW

trustpilot-star trustpilot-star trustpilot-star trustpilot-star trustpilot-star

Hudgell Solicitors made my personal…

"Hudgell Solicitors made my personal injury claim so easy, they got me the treatment i… "

Mr Nick Todd

trustpilot-star trustpilot-star trustpilot-star trustpilot-star trustpilot-star

I have never used solicitors before

"I have never used solicitors before, my dealings with Hudgell have been excellent I have… "

David Varley

trustpilot-star trustpilot-star trustpilot-star trustpilot-star trustpilot-star

Very helpful

"Very helpful"

Ethan Ferguson

trustpilot-star trustpilot-star trustpilot-star trustpilot-star trustpilot-star

First Class service

"Hudgell Solicitors are currently working on my case and I must say so far the… "

Emma Jeeves

Rated 9.4 out of 10 based on 455 reviews

Powered by Trustpilot

Our offices

London

55 Fleet Street
EC4Y 1JU

VIEW DETAILS

Hull

No 2 @ The Dock
46 Humber Street
HU1 1TU

VIEW DETAILS

Leeds

10 Park Place
Leeds
LS1 2RU

VIEW DETAILS

Manchester

1 St Peter’s Square
Third Floor
Manchester
M2 3AE

 

VIEW DETAILS

© 2018 Hudgell Solicitors®. All Rights Reserved.

Hudgell Solicitors is a trading name of Neil Hudgell Limited | Director Dr. Neil Hudgell MA LLB (Hons) LLD | Registered in England No. 7078429 | Authorised and Regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority | SRA No. 521372 | VAT Registration No. 254 7802 90