Money Will Fund Specialist Lifetime Care Woman Requires
A mother left with a severe brain injury and impaired vision after problems emerged following biopsies at a specialist London hospital has received a £2 million settlement to fund the specialist lifetime care she now requires.
The woman, in her 50s but who cannot be named for legal reasons, was sent for a biopsy at the National Hospital of Neurology and Neurosurgery in October 2014 after a brain lesion was identified on an MRI scan.
However, after doctors deemed the initial biopsy inconclusive, the woman from St Albans, Hertfordshire, was readmitted for a second procedure. Sadly, there were serious complications with the second biopsy and the woman went on to suffer significant neurological damage and reduced vision in her right eye. The problems meant she required a long stay in hospital for the insertion of brain shunts and rehabilitation and was only transferred home in May 2015.
Following the problems, the woman’s family instructed specialist medical negligence lawyers at Irwin Mitchell to investigate her care. They launched a legal case against University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust arguing a range of failings.
Now, just weeks before a trial relating to the case was set to begin, the legal experts have secured a settlement from the Trust despite a full denial of liability.
The settlement has been approved by the High Court. It will fund the specialist care and therapy the woman will require for the rest of her life and compensate for the fact that she is now unable to work.
Expert Opinion“The issues that my client endured have had a profound effect on her and her family. Many years on they remain devastated by what happened.
“While no amount of money can make up for what has happened we are pleased to have secured this settlement which has been carefully considered and approved by the High Court.
“It is disappointing that the settlement was only agreed shortly before the case was about to go to trial. The last few years have been an incredibly anxious time for the family and we hope that the conclusion of this case will allow them to now look to the future.” Leena Savjani - Partner
Irwin Mitchell argued that the woman did not get proper advice on the possible treatment options for the lesion, adding that she should have been told about different approaches and the potential risks. Lawyers also said that the first biopsy indicated a non-malignant lesion and if that conclusion had been reached there was no need to proceed with the second procedure. The legal experts added that the second biopsy offered unnecessary risks and little benefit.
Her husband said: “The past few years have been incredibly difficult for our family and while my wife has made incredible progress, she will never be the same person.
“Nothing can change what has happened but at least my wife can access the care she needs to now make the most of life. We are so proud of the courage and determination she shows every day not to be defined by her condition.”