To Sue the hospital childbirth complications and serious health problems for child

[Readabook1]

Sorry very long Also very distressing 1. Background ; history of stillbirths of the first born on one side of the family. When the pregnancy was confirmed we stated this and requested an elective cesarean -this was refused.

1. True to form the baby got stuck with the cord wrapped round the neck twice.

Forceps delivery. Hospital asked to place the baby in a Special Cot-refused. 3 On call Paediatrician called no action taken

1. An hour after the birth retired medically qualified relative arrives to find the baby had collapsed . without this action the baby would have died.
2. Baby and Mother had to be transferred to a Neo-Natal unit (the expense of this alone makes me cringe Nhs prepared to fund any b...mistake the docs make)

6.Mother now bleeding to death but helped 7.We are told the baby had an infection and possibly meningitis The medic relative said no not meningitis -this was correct.

1. Baby survives ( is full term) but we are told possible loss of right kidney (due to infection)
2. No follow up on kidney by anyone

The rest is now very distressing so you may not wish to read 10 Child now 18 in the middle of A level- suffers a DVT Rushed into hospital. (gp order) Given drug therapy 11. Dvt on left side so now 2 injuries . Only follow up is Ultrasound scan confirming loss of kidney. Our questions not answered ie how did this happen. We asked for a venogram -the doctor had never heard of it 12 A year later - we get a referral to Specialists in London dealing with children. 13 Venogram confirms restriction in the blood supply to the lower left leg.terrible pain (he had to finish A levels the next year so a year lost) 14 Specialists request medical records from his birth Go to Gp He says he has no idea how to get them ???!!! 15 The Specialists are suggesting the baby did not have an infection or anyway he certainly had a thrombosis in the right kidney at birth so it was things around the birth that possibly brought this on I am fuming that we used a "hospital" and had to practically save our own child Thanks for listening

Get some advice from a solicitor specialising in clinical negligence work.

Don't be daft, I'm aware how barristers operate. But posting duff info and sniping isn't really useful?

Legally, records for children have to be kept for 8 years AFTER their 18th b'day (or their death).
So all the records of the birth etc... Should still be available. The hospital would be in a very bad place if they weren't able to find them.

If I understand well, there has been a string of issues at the time of the birth (incl medical errors/negligence?) that have probably have led to the loss of a kidney.
This has not been discovered until last year, following DVT, investigations etc... Hence the wish NOW to go to Court (I suspect the OP/the mum/the now 18yo all wanted to forget about that time!) as it appears that the issue he is experiencing now are due to medical negligence.

I would agree with going and see a specialised lawyer.
I can also see where you are coming from and why the distress ow rather than before. There is also the case that it is clear now that the 18yo has a disability that might be causing him problems as an adult (eg ability to work, health issues etc...). A claim to the Court to get compensation could help him to deal with the financial side of it.

I still dont get it.

Although the baby "lost" a kidney or function of one kidney, he can still, and has, lived a completely normal life with the remaining one. Many people are born with one kidney and never even know until investigations for other issues.

So there's no injury there, even if it was a medical error.

His current problems are unrelated and nothing to do with what may or may not have happened at birth?

Are you trying to demonstrate that his birth issues directly led to his current health problems? Has he had ongoing problems as a child?

I still dont see what you are trying to claim for...

This tragedy would probably not have happened if an elective c section had been
done

What tragedy? The kidney issue, that hasn't affected the child long term?

Or the current health issues?

You need some serious specialist advice if you are trying to argue that a medical error at birth caused his current issues. I'm not a specialist but kidney function won't affect blood clotting, vascular or haematology.

You need to prove the errors at birth are responsible for his current disability.

You usually have to start a case for medical negligence with 6 months of the "incident" occurring, unless there are special circumstances. 18 years may be too far to go back. I maybe wrong, happy to be told I am if so

You're wrong ;-)

You have three years from the date of the incident, or three years from the date when you became aware of an injury/loss. Different rules apply to children.

The OP's posts are indeed very confusing - she needs to sit down with a lawyer, discuss the facts and work out whether she has a case.

You need to prove the errors at birth are responsible for his current disability.

And to prove that errors were made and that the doctors acted in a way (or neglected to act in a way) which is not competent. 18 years down the line this is going to be tough.

Causation will be your biggest obstacle I'd imagine. You have to prove any errors are the cause of current problems. You'll also need a doctor to say that the majority of doctors would act differently in presented with the same circumstances.

You can bring a claim regardless of how long ago the 'negligence' occurred but limitation is a defence available to the defendant who may argue that your claim is out of time and apply to have it struck out. I would recommend talking to a lawyer as a matter of urgency if you want to make a claim but if there is any evidence of current problems having been identified earlier in his medical records, time would already started to run.

you have all been fantastic with your replies. sorting out the wood from the trees can be hard but Mumsnetters are fab at giving focus.
Micah/Dailymailphequers the baby suffered a thrombosis in his right kidney due to his traumatic birth but the neo Natal were so busy trying to save his life initially they could not confirm for sure whether the kidney had been destroyed or not.
It only came out much later. There was one follow up appointment (not at the place where he was born but their attitude was he was alive etc so further action
These days he would have been given treatment.Micah a thrombosis is a clot so it is the j ob for Haematologists ( clot is blood disorder)and vascular as it was a vein
You are not a medic so unlikely you would know but good points anyway
The birth and the later DVT. With only one kidney the venal system was struggling
to operate causing pressure on the other side.He has veins growing all over his stomach as they have nowhere to go! It is yuck! It just took big stress of exams and
bang. I have to believe the uks top specialists on this advice Also being immobile while studying makes it worse Children as young as 14 are getting dvts due to sedentary lifestyle.
Mistake Yes they would argue Obstetrician got him out but it was what happened
after that.The paediatrician who did not speak English did not put him in a Special cot. He left the room and the baby collapsed. Most doctors would have put him a cot.2 friends of mine had similar births both babies in special as a precaution.
Tests on the med records show he seemed to recover temporarily but then went
again.Plus he had the cord round his neck TWICE which is unusual.
We are hopeful that scienc e will come with something in the next few years

So if you have a young one with an unusual condition make sure your gp gets
him/her to the right place eg teaching/research hospital not a small local one.

Micah a thrombosis is a clot so it is the j ob for Haematologists ( clot is blood disorder)and vascular as it was a vein
You are not a medic so unlikely you would know but good points anyway

I know fine well what a clot is, thank you. How do you know i'm not a medic? I said i wasnt a haematology specialist. I meant the non functioning kidney wouldnt affect his clotting now.

i still have lots of questions- why would a "special cot" make a difference? Can you show the dvt at birth is directly related to birth errors? If he has a clotting disorder now, could it have been present at birth and thats why he had the renal dvt, rather than birth trauma?

His "venal system" shouldnt be struggling if his remaining kidney is fully functional, and it wouldn't "cause pressure on the other side". It is far more complicated than that.

You really do need a proper solicitor qualified in medical issues, as it sounds like you're not entirely clear on the medicine.

Read, I hope you get the copies you want of the birth and have your physician explain the delivery to you or have the hospital where your son was born give you further debriefing. You would get these from the hospital where your son was delivered after signing some forms.
The way you are describing the delivery gives me the impression you are missing some key pieces.
"Special Cot" do you mean an incubator?
Nothing rare about a cord being wrapped around the neck once or twice, it's the first thing physicians check for once the head is delivered.
You may want to see the NICU records of tests performed and diagnosis to better understand what happened there, i'm sure your son was thoroughly reviewed. Again you would get those from the hospital you and your son were transferred to once you signed more forms.
The DVT could be caused by sitting and studying for long periods and being dehydrated poor level of activity.
What did you do between his birth and age 18 to ensure his kidney function was adequate?

Micah- very clear about the medicine as we now have knowledgable Specialists who
have explained it I am just passing it on but I am a lay person.
The care and help we have received from them is tremendous and I just wonder why
they know much more than our local medics??
Micah he has veins growing all over as both sides of his body's blood supply has been restricted yet we have a letter from our local lot denying it. They are the
crappiest lot I have ever met-glad to be away from them
Outs pasture yes Special cot is an incubator . Dvt is def linked with immobility.#
They are currently examining bloods again as some people have sticky blood.
We got nowhere with the kidney thing -fobbed off - told lucky he was alive which
I do agree with.
Sueing medics is hard they all stick together They will never admit that our relative
had to save a family member in a hospital because the loss of face is too much
Imagine being at work and some stranger comes it off the street and starts doing your job!!!!Hahah

Read I think you need to get proper advice about this. From what you've posted I must admit I can't see you getting anywhere.

Firstly no-one is saying that his delivery was handled well and that there may have been issues with his care. But medical negligence has a very strict criteria - not just poor care but that direct harm was caused and that the treatment given was outside of what would normally happen.

So going from what you've said your son is being investigated for a clotting abnormality and that his immobility during revision contributed to his DVT. If he has a clotting problem he was more likely to have a clot at birth.

He has (I'm presuming) been fit and well before his A-levels. So the lack of a single functioning kidney has not impaired him. There are hundreds of people around who don't even know that they have one kidney so it would be difficult to argue significant harm.

I also don't understand about the cord thing and first borns. If that was the reason for asking for c-section without evidence of such a condition (journal articles from 18 years ago not anecdotal stories from the family) you'll be on a hiding to nothing.

I don't think you're going to listen to anyone on here though and I'm sure that there'll be someone who'll be willing to take your money. Honestly I think you have fixated on what was undoubtedly a traumatic event and are using it to explain everything away.

I don't think you're going to listen to anyone on here though and I'm sure that there'll be someone who'll be willing to take your money. Honestly I think you have fixated on what was undoubtedly a traumatic event and are using it to explain everything away.

This ^^

Op, your ds's birth was undoubtedly traumatic, but if really don't think you can blame that on a DVT 18 years later.

Did your son lose a kidney at birth? This is not clear. If he did, why didn't you follow this up at the time?

I'm not sure why your son is classified disabled now - people recover from DVTs and there is medication to thin the blood.

The umbilical cord being found the baby's neck is very common, and is caused by length of the cord and the baby moving around in the womb. Dd's cord was three times round her neck and she couldn't move - I had a CS.

I'm still not clear whether the kidney was removed at birth either?!

So... Readabook: what do you think caused the original new born infection & at what precise point do you think the infection should have been detected but wasn't detected?

What was the infection? Group B strep? You can only sue them if they didn't follow due diligence procedures as they existed 19-20 yrs ago. There was no routine protocol in UK back then to screen for GBS.

Thanks Shakey. The right kidney was lost during the birth, not REMOVED.
I presume in an infant it may not have been properly formed so its growth was
interfered with during the awful birth and lack of care afterwards.? They did an ultra sound recently and it is not there.He is disabled as he cannot walk very much
due to constant swelling and pain down his left leg which also has insufficient blood flow He has to wear surgical stockings which is awful for a young man in
the prime of his life He is constantly pale and tired
great points from you. ie time limits You are so right- the number of cases that fail
due to out of time is enough for people to be warned to considering getting timely
advice Really valid point
Thought you might be interested: if you only have one kidney you cannot play in an
international sports team so tough if you are picked for England.......

Standard practice isnt to automatically give someone a c section on the basis of family history of still birth. My own mother had suffered a still born but when on to have normal deliveries,as have I. C sections do carry there own risk. The main issue is the management of the delivery you endured and the care that was given. Did you not chase up the investigations at the time about the kidney? It's difficult to assume if there's neglect on their part without knowing all the medical details and investigations on there part. If you gain access to the medical records it's worth having another medical professional to have a look.

OP the kidneys are formed as part of foetal development. If the right kidney was not there post birth there were likely congenital causes in-utero not post birth.

The kidney will not have just disappeared during his birth!

I imagine a track cyclist or track putter or rower could have only one kidney & represent their country... it's contact sports that might get ruled out.

My mother lived a healthy life (plenty of active sport; until sudden death from unrelated causes at age 62), with only one functional kidney. Having only one kidney is fine as long as it's a good one.

Chronic kidney disease is a risk factor for DVT. The guy's single kidney could have been damaged as a result of neonatal GBS/similar infection.

Really hard to unpick what OP is saying. I think I'm losing the will...