Medication compensation?

[ArnoldBee]

My DH has just found out that the damage that his liver was caused by a medication that he was given in the past. No-one had ever told him - he only found out as he was given a print out by his GP for his urgent referral to cardiology. He's on various medications with his health issues and pretty much has been experimented on for the past 30 years as he is beyond current medical science.

There is nothing that can be done to heal his liver other than monitoring for the rest of his life.

His liver function is impacted by this damage which does impact on his everyday life.

I don't need opinions on the morals of suing the nhs as that's a moral question for him to consider for himself.

I just couldn't tell by googling if this was even a possibility?

Did the patient information leaflet of this medication list possible liver damage as a side effect?

Without the medication that damaged his liver would the issue that he was taking it for have caused health issues more significant than the liver damage he is suffering?

As he is beyond current medical science, would he have died without the ‘experimental’ medication?

I take a medicine which has the possible side effect of liver damage, so they test my liver function via a blood test every three months. Possibly depending on the medication if standard practice is regular blood tests and they haven’t done that then yes. However if it’s a known side effect but so rare it’s not standard practice to do blood tests then probably not. Guess you need to see a solicitor.

It would be necessary to show that the doctor who prescribed that medication acted in a way that no competent doctor would.

Bringing medical negligence claims are very expensive. Even if your solicitor is acting on a 'no win, no fee' arrangements, you would likely stil need to pay for disbursements i.e medical reports, usually more than 1 from different specialities which are also several thousand pounds each.

He wouldn't have died without the medication. It didn't actually do anything so they just moved onto something else. I need to check the side effects of the drug and he is more than likely to have received a box with a leaflet in it. He just wasn't very competent at the time as he was on an epilepsy drug which zonked him out. He doesn't have epilepsy it was another experiment.

You need to establish two things before even thinking about taking this forward:

a) as Eileen101 says, was the medical course of action a reasonable one (not necessarily the only possible one, but one that was reasonably justified)
b) was he warned about side effects - and following on from that, how? Did he have to sign a consent form? Did he feel he was adequately informed? Was there someone with him at appointments at that time (you, other family/friend, specialist nurse) and did they think consent was properly obtained? Was he left with a point of contact if any questions occurred to him after the appointment?

Also, if known risk of hepatotoxicity, how was he monitored? Or is it a side effect so rare that monitoring is not indicated?

How and when was the damage spotted? How are they sure it is as a result of this specific medication (it sounds as if there has been a lot going on)? How extensive is the damage What does it mean for future treatment plans?

Why was he not informed of it when first spotted?
(I'm ready to bet the answer to this one is cock up)

Not a hundred percent sure, but I think all medicines supplied must include a pil (patient information leaflet). This leaflet will list the possible side-effects. In theory, then, the patient has the option to read the leaflet first, and then can decide whether to take the medication or not. So you could argue that he consented to take the risk.

If in hospital, possible risks should be explained of any medication.

I guess if other medication zonked him out, then you could argue he didn’t have mental capacity to consent to the treatment.

I doubt that being "zonked out" equates to diminished mental capacity.

I see no likelihood of suing for compensation unless the side effect was known about and not included on the patient information leaflet. It is usual to have the first thing it says is something along the lines of do not take this until you have read the whole leaflet, and that warning is also often on the boxes / containers that medication comes in. Pharma companies now often include almost any reported side effect even if they are 100% certain that a drug doesn't cause it! That way they've covered themselves in case it's found to.

I have also had medication which can cause liver damage, which also didn't work for it's intended purpose. But that doesn't mean I shouldn't have been tried on it - in many people it works really well. Just not for me. But I read the leaflet and decided on the risk to me.

I doubt if you'd succeed in proving negligence.

I doubt that being "zonked out" equates to diminished mental capacity

I agree

Are you sure he actually has liver damage? You say he was unaware of it until he saw a print out for something else? What did it say? Has he spoken to his doctor? Some liver function tests which are “abnormal” fluctuate. Was it definitely caused by the medication? Because again not all liver damage is medicine related.

Just because his liver function is impaired I doubt if you can say that this is as a result of medication.

You don't sign a consent form for most medication. You get given the patient information leaflet which comes in the box usually. It's up to you to read it.

He was diagnosed with liver issues in 2007 but no-one ever told him why.

The notes he's seen in October 2022 were updated in 2015 (when we changed doctors) with the specific drug as the reason.

To be fair his notes has been wheeled in on a 2 tier trolley so things will be missed.

He had a liver scan 2 weeks ago from a referral made in 2020 as they are catching up and they didn't have his up to date conditions and medications.

They try him on many different cocktails to see if something happens, take him off get a different consultant try it again but in a different dose and other drug combinations.

We have 2 letters 4 years apart stating he's beyond current medical science so that's what we live with.

My curiosity has been answered so thank you very much.

Is it something like Methotrexate or Leflunomide? It's always been warned against as a risk and you are (and have been historically) told not to drink whilst on it as a direct result. I clearly remember reading through Patient Information Leaflets for medications in the 90s because I had a habit of developing allergies to things, so always checked everything.

That obviously doesn't stop some people drinking whilst taking them. And saying they didn't know there was a risk of the medication being hepatotoxic/still denying they've been drinking. Or just secretly drinking and looking for something to blame when it catches up with them after a couple of decades.

If you said what the medication was that he's blaming and for how long he was on it, that could give further indication if it was obvious or unheard of.

I sued and won. You only have three years from the event to begin the process so you might not be able to anyway.
They admitted negligence and a failure of a duty of care more or less immediately but it still took three years.
It wasn't pleasant and the trust tried to limit its liability at every turn. There's a huge difference between what you know and what you can prove.

Can you say what the medication is?

Actually it's 3 years from the time you became aware that a specific drug or action caused the disability. Not from the actual illness

Are you quite sure the medication caused liver failure?

What's the medication that is attributed to the liver damage?

Was it a new drug or a well established one?

Was it for a NICE approved use or was it being used off-label and therefore outside its licences?

Who prescribed it? How long was he on it for? What dose?

What does/did NICE guidance state around its use ie the PP who had frequent tests to monitor for associated damage?

Any contraindications for the meds about using it with other drugs, alcohol or foods?

What's the evidence that it is what caused the damage?

Has there been a class action against the drug company already for this medication?

If you want to explore this your house insurance legal cover sometimes covers negligence

DH is trying to remember the name of it but it is a standard drug. He's got covid at the moment so I'm giving him a bit of leeway in trying to remember.

Roaccutane for acne? It's damaged my liver. The leaflet clearly says it damages the liver.

I take it as the price for taking the drug.

Be a different matter if it wasn't disclosed as a side effect I guess?

It's probanly either a cardiac or blood pressure drug. He's currently erring on the side that all his drugs have caused damage. He was just shocked its been actually noted.

The complication is that they don't know what's wrong with him. Had top cardiologists that can figure it including randomly Gerry McCann before everything happened.

Can't figure it out.

Been told he's one of the 4% of the population that they'll never know why so have to treat what's in front them.