CC –V- GR and MCH
The Plaintiff’s claim in this case arose out of alleged negligence on the part of the Defendants during and after an abdominal hysterectomy carried out on the 09th July 2007. The claim centered around allegations that the Defendants had interfered with and damaged the Plaintiff’s left ureter during the hysterectomy, as a consequence of which the Plaintiff ultimately lost the use of her left kidney. There were also serious concerns regarding her post-operative care.
Post-operatively, the Plaintiff’s initial progress was good but she began complaining of severe pain in her left renal area a number of days later. Various investigations were carried out which displayed an obstruction in her left ureter causing dilatation of that ureter. The Plaintiff was diagnosed with “early hydronephrosis” which is swelling of a kidney caused by the obstruction of the free flow of urine. Despite this diagnosis, the Plaintiff was discharged home without any further tests or a referral to a Urologist. A repeat ultrasound was carried out on the 27th July 2007 and whilst it showed no improvement in her condition, no further intervention was deemed necessary. The Plaintiff was last reviewed by the first named Defendant on the 28th August 2007 wherein she was assured there was nothing to worry about and that he would review her in 3 months time. No appointment followed until the Plaintiff’s GP referred her to a nephrologist in March 2008 and the non functioning kidney was discovered.
The basis of the Plaintiff’s claim was that the Defendants were negligent in causing the injury during the operation undertaken on the 09th July 2007, in failing to discover the injury prior to the conclusion of that operation, in failing to immediately refer the Plaintiff to a Urologist upon discovery of her injuries or at any stage thereafter, and in discharging the Plaintiff notwithstanding her injuries. It was the Plaintiff’s claim that had they diagnosed the injury and/or referred her to a Urologist at the appropriate time, she would have regained normal renal function. As a consequence of the alleged negligence, the Plaintiff has been left with one remaining functioning kidney with serious implications for the Plaintiff’s health. The kidney itself is susceptible to infection and may have to be removed in the future. The Plaintiff has also suffered the natural and foreseeable consequences the discovery of such an injury would have on a 57 year old woman.
Proceedings in this case were issued on the 23rd February 2010. Prior to receiving a Defence, settlement negotiations took place which resulted in the settlement of the matter for a six figure sum.
If you have any further queries, please contact any of the following from our Medical Negligence group:
- David McKechnie, Associate Solicitor
02 November 2012