Claimant succeeded£195,888
[2024] EWHC 1688 (KB)·2024·Liability and damages decided at trial
The patient had a hysterectomy, pelvic floor repair and incontinence tape fitted by one consultant, then mesh removal and a colposuspension by a second consultant. The court cleared the first surgeon but found the second performed the colposuspension without clinical justification, leaving the patient with severe bladder symptoms.
Performing an operation that is not clinically justified is a breach of duty even if it is technically done well. Damages are limited to the harm caused by the negligent procedure, not the patient's pre-existing symptoms.
Claim failed
[2022] EWHC 100 (QB)·2022·Liability decided at trial
After routine day-case removal of a scrotal cyst, the claimant returned in the early hours in severe pain; intravenous antibiotics were not started when they should have been and an ultrasound request was delayed, and he was later diagnosed with Fournier gangrene, needing repeated surgery and losing both testicles. The judge found breach of duty but held the claimant could not prove the delays changed the outcome.
Proving that care fell below standard is only half the case: the claimant must also show the negligence made a difference. Where surgery would have happened at the same time anyway, delayed antibiotics or scans may not be shown to have caused the injury.
Claimant succeeded
[2017] EWHC 2608 (QB)·2017·Appeal decision
A woman who had vaginal tape surgery in 2007 sued in 2015, saying she was never properly told about the product or the alternatives. The surgeon had died by then, but the court allowed the late claim to proceed and the High Court refused to interfere.
A late claim can still go ahead even where the doctor has died, if independent records and expert evidence mean a fair trial is possible. The court weighs the harm to each side rather than applying the deadline mechanically.
Claim failed
[2016] EWHC 1729 (QB)·2016·Liability decided at trial
After a radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer the patient developed an abscess and a narrowed ureter, and later lost a kidney; she alleged the bowel was perforated at surgery and that urologists should have been involved in a second operation. The judge preferred the hospital's explanation for the infection and found no negligence in either operation.
Ureteric and kidney damage after pelvic surgery is not automatically negligent; the court will examine the most likely mechanism. Expert evidence on the cause of infection is often decisive.
Claimant succeeded£459,758
[2015] EWCA Civ 1244·2015·Appeal decision
During surgery to repair a bladder-vagina fistula caused by an earlier hysterectomy, the surgeon damaged the femoral nerve while dissecting the sigmoid colon. The trial judge awarded £459,758 and the Court of Appeal upheld the finding that the injury was caused by negligent direct injury rather than retractor pressure.
Where a nerve is damaged in an area the surgeon was working on, a court may infer negligence from the mechanism of injury and the expert evidence. Appeal courts rarely overturn a trial judge's factual findings on how an injury occurred.