Surgeon from 20 years ago is up on GMC misconduct case + lawyers are pursuing medical negligence claims. I think I'm affected. What next?

[MyPatientsIsWearingThin]

A brief bit of backstory - I had surgery about 20 years ago, as a teenager, for a serious condition. My DF had occupational health insurance, which paid privately, so the normal ethical issues of suing the NHS are a red herring here.

5 years ago I discovered I had an underlying genetic condition which had necessitated the previous surgery, but the lack of diagnosis has caused preventable knock-on health issues, with numerous A&E attendances and at least one surgery. There were enough signs 20 years ago that a diagnosis of the underlying condition would have been possible. Since that diagnosis I've held the opinion that the surgeon was probably rather negligent at the time, but it was water under the bridge / nothing to be done now etc.

Now I've discovered, by accident, that the surgeon who could have diagnosed me 20 years ago is the subject of a GMC misconduct case for medical negligence relating to numerous other patients. Claims include performing over-extensive surgery - which could affect me, I don't know, as no other specialist has looked for that.

Has anyone else been in a similar situation? I would like to talk to one of the law firms circling this case (there's quite a few - Thompsons, Enable Law, Barcan Kirby, Freeths, Penningtons Manches Cooper and possibly others) but have no idea which to talk to, how to choose one, or if talking to one means I can't talk to others later on. I have legal cover through my home insurance but would need to check if it covers medical negligence.

Thank you, this is really useful information.

One question - is it preferable that they use their own expert panel, or an agency? I'm presuming the latter as it gives access to a wider range of experts.

There appear to be 5 firms acting for former patients of this doctor, and at least one has previously acted for victims in the Ian Paterson scandal which seems comforting.

Is there an industry standard for the success fee %, ATE premium and deductions, or is it very variable?

I will respect your preference not to go into the details, and won’t speculate about the condition. But, as a general point, it can’t be that obvious if none of the other doctors noticed it.

Thank you; it's more a case of "any idiot can spot something, only someone with expertise can understand the implications".

If I can liken my body to a house, then any idiot can say "that wall is damp and mouldy". It requires a bit of knowledge to determine if the damp is caused by condensation, rising damp, penetrating damp, gutter issues or a leaking pipe.

In my case, at the risk of overstretching the analogy, the surgeon replastered a wall affected by damp, but didn't bother looking at the outside wall to identify the cracked render causing penetrating damp.

In my case, one of the signs visible 20 years ago is so very obvious that to this day strangers make wisecracks about it, and that happens so frequently I have a stash of retorts up my sleeve (and of course it was a target of schoolyard bullies). Another sign is there if you look closely in a "huh it's visible but I hadn't noticed it until you pointed it out" way. Another is only obvious if I choose to make it obvious, but is easily screened for. The fourth was the presenting issue to the surgeon in question, and the fifth was operated on by a separate department two years prior.

I do fully appreciate that it's a rare condition, so I completely understand why it was missed by GPs and A&E staff, who have to be jacks of all trades on some level. What I can't understand is specialist missing something that fell within his speciality. It's like a building surveyor missing subsidence.

Is it Ehlers Danlos?

When did you realise you had suffered an injury due to medical negligence?

For me it was EDS, missed for years. Pointless ankle surgery and ten years of high dose antibiotics.

You may be beyond the time limit for bringing a claim - generally for medical claims it is 3 years since the negligent act or 3 years since you first realised there may have been negligence.

I think what you’re actually after is some organisational learning rather than individuals being targeted by the regulators. No one learns from that.

Irwin Mitchell have a birmingham office. They have an excellent rep for this.

Possibly, although children's claims have an extended period. Op, do you have any patient notes from that period - hospital records may have been destroyed by now but gp may have copies of letters.

@Silverdogblue no the surgeon that did the first major op and cocked up, the 2nd opinion was very much - paraphrasing here - he wouldn't have performed that surgery in someone with the extent of issues on 3 different factors.

Then a 2nd major fuck up when post surgery she said she had a major bulge on her spine repeatedly and was in agony and the consultant refused to see her until a couple of weeks later when her GP read the riot act at them. Emergency surgery and left with permanent major damage.

Both of them major God complexes.

First one just wanted to patients to try the surgery on without assessing their full suitability and without considering what was causing the pain.

2nd one - just an utter arsehole.

Very long and complex.

Not diagnosing her sooner - because some other arsehole decided pain was all in head and every other Dr read those notes and believed them.

Oh yes and when they sued all her medical notes and mysteriously disappeared... no surgeon will testify against another because ultimately they are all mates as it's such a small field.

The time limit is also potentially complicated by the GMC case, as the OP may have an argument that she only became fully aware of the potential negligence when she heard about that. The law firms already involved will be able to advise.

The time doesn’t start running until age 18, but OP said the operation was in her teens & 20 years ago.

OP also says that she’s been concerned about possible negligence since her diagnosis 5 years ago.

I’m not saying time has definitely run out, but OP should be aware that there’s a least a good chance it has. She should see a solicitor asap to confirm.

I wondered about the timebar but was assuming the OP was saying her date of knowledge was now.

One question - is it preferable that they use their own expert panel, or an agency? I'm presuming the latter as it gives access to a wider range of experts.

Not necessarily. I prefer to use experts from my panel as my colleagues and I have worked with them in the past and know the quality of their work. I only approach agencies if my experts are unavailable or if the case involves a particular medical field where I don't have a regular expert.

Is there an industry standard for the success fee %, ATE premium and deductions, or is it very variable?

The success fee is based upon the assessment of risk. No win no fee means the solicitor is taking all the risk and won't get paid if the case is unsuccessful. So in a case where the merits are unknown or risky, the SF might be 100%. In a case where admissions have already been made, it might be 75% or lower.

That percentage is then applied to the amount of basic charges incurred at the end of the case. So, if I've done £50,000 of work, a 75% SF would be £37,500. The more work I do, the higher the amount. It's impossible to predict this amount at the outset as it will depend on how the case unfolds.

The SF is limited to no more than 25% of your damages for pain and suffering and past financial loss. So, no matter what the above calculation, you won't lose all your damages to the SF.

Different firms use different ATE providers. Temple, ARAG, Markel... there's lots out there. The policy pays for your disbursements (expert fees, court fees) if you lose. The premium you pay if you win depends on how much damages you recover. They should give you a quote.

Also ask how disbursements such as the expert fees will be paid. They need to be paid when the invoice is due, whether you win or lose. Does the firm pay them? Will they offer you a disbursement funding loan?

Your best bet is to just start calling a few firms. Given the potential limitation issues, you need to find a firm willing to take on your case before you can start comparing them to decide which one to instruct. You're not committed to anything until you've signed a retainer.

Ive just looked things up and one law firm had this information:

In the UK, the Limitation Act 1980 sets out the time limits for making different types of legal claim.
The time limit to make a claim is known as a limitation period and lasts three years. This time limit of three years applies in medical and clinical negligence cases.

If the potential claimant was under 18 when the negligence occurred, the three-year time limit begins on the negligence victim’s 18th birthday. At this point, the young person legally becomes an adult and is deemed responsible for their legal affairs.
This means potential claimants have until their 21st birthday to start legal proceedings for medical negligence experienced in childhood.

But the clock does not start ticking until you become aware of the injury (or could reasonably be expected to have become aware of it).

Say the OP had spinal surgery for back pain (I'm not trying to guess the real diagnosis, so apologies if I have). Over the following years, she gradually becomes aware that her pain was more likely caused by connective tissue issues, and so the surgery was not appropriate. Some years later, these suspicions are confirmed by the diagnosis of a connective tissue disorder. However, it's only when she reads about GMC action for the surgeon inappropriate surgery on other patients that she realises that the surgeon's choice to operate on her may have been actually negligent.

So when does the clock start, in this case? When she first makes the connection between her connective tissue symptoms and her back pain? When she receives an actual diagnosis of a CT disorder? Or when she hears about the surgeon's alleged negligence? The claimant and the respondent will have very different views!

@MissLucyEyelesbarrow
Yeah, who knows? I imagine it’s very complicated.
This says it’s when they first become aware of the negligence so it could poss fit it.

The medical negligence time scale starts from the date the potential claimant first became aware of the negligence.
This could be the date the negligence occurred, or the date they started experiencing symptoms as a result of the negligence. In some cases, this could be many years after the negligence took place.

Its just difficult determining whether something just took a long time to put all the pieces together, or whether it was actual negligence.

I have IBD, it took years of pain, bleeding, suspicion of eating disorders before I was actually diagnosed (25 years ago) but thats how long a lot of people took to get diagnosed back then.

People are now diagnosed quicker because of more knowledge and patterns of illnesses becoming. I wouldn’t say it was negligence I wasn’t diagnosed for 10 + years. As infuriating as it is.