Following a series of undiagnosed abdominal pain, Louise* consented to undergo an explorative laparoscopy. The surgery was performed, and the doctor reported no evidence of bowel ischemia. He did not convert to open surgery, and Louise was discharged home.
After a further day of intense pain, Louise was readmitted and underwent an emergency procedure where faecal peritonitis and a serious perforation of the small bowel were discovered.
As a result of the surgeon’s negligence, Louise has continued to suffer from debilitating bowel symptoms, which would have been avoidable with earlier detection.
Elizabeth Wickson supported Louise in making a claim. Despite liability being denied right up until trial, compensation was secured.
A laparoscopy is a type of keyhole surgery used to diagnose and treat conditions. It allows a surgeon to use only small cuts and a camera for procedures inside the tummy or pelvis.
The challenges our client faced
Louise reported to the emergency department with recurring, excruciating epigastric pain with episodes of vomiting. Several CT scans and blood tests were requested, which showed she had developed blood clots and potentially an ischemic bowel. She was treated conservatively and sent home.
Louise continued to experience discomfort in her stomach and was readmitted several times. A further CT scan showed a decline in her bowels, which led doctors to decide that Louise should undergo a laparoscopy and possibly an open procedure to treat ischaemic bowel, depending on the findings of the surgery. The operating surgeon reported “absolutely no evidence of bowel ischemia” and did not convert to open surgery.
Louise was discharged home, and after a day of further intense pain, she was readmitted to the hospital by paramedics. Louise was taken into surgery a second time, and severe faecal peritonitis was discovered; there was also a perforation in the small bowel. The perforation and further surgery were unnecessary and could have been avoided.
Following the surgery, Louise developed a wound infection and difficulties with her stoma, which caused considerable distress and a prolonged period of illness. Louise developed an incisional hernia, which later necessitated surgical repair.
Louise had a prolonged recovery and required time off work; her medical studies were deferred by a year as a result of her illness. She and her family suffered extreme distress and disruption to their lives because of the negligence.
How we helped settle the claim
Elizabeth, Senior Associate, in our medical negligence team, obtained supportive evidence from a colorectal expert, which enabled Louise to pursue a medical negligence claim against the hospital trust. The colorectal expert confirmed that there had been a breach of duty, the surgeon had not performed the laparoscopy to a reasonable standard as he had failed to inspect Louise’s bowel thoroughly, which led to perforation, further surgery and a much more complex recovery.
The defendant denied liability, denying there was a breach of duty altogether. They argued that the surgeon was very experienced, and this meant he had conducted a full inspection of Louise’s bowels and performed the surgery to a reasonable standard.
With the support of numerous experts, the matter became advanced in Court proceedings. Elizabeth ensured that clear and compelling evidence was presented to challenge the defendant’s position. Elizabeth obtained further expert evidence from a histopathology expert, which confirmed that evidence of peritonitis was there to be seen when the surgeon performed the laparoscopy. Despite this, the defendant continued to deny liability right up to trial.
Thanks to Louise’s commitment to the claim, Elizabeth continued to defend the claim and a settlement of £300,000 was successfully secured before a 6-day trial commenced.
*Real name not used
“It has been a seamless transition from you taking over the case and I would just like to thank you for all the time and effort you put into it.”
