Can you sue the GP?

[whatdoutnk]

Hi I'm looking to know the following? If anyone has any Knowledge of this?

Patient has suspected a mole on body, new mole, fast growing, patient sees GP, GP isn't concerned, but sends a picture of mole to a dermatologist for an opinion. Dermatologist comes back with "not concerning"

Patient goes back to the GP as is still concerned, a different doctor has a look at it as this doctor has a qualification in this area, GP say's definitely nothing to worry about but can remove to ease patients mind but it doesn't need removed.

Patient gets referred for mole removal due to patients request.

On the day of removal, it was another GP who removed it. Before removing the GP couldn't wrap her head around why it was being removed as it looked okay. The GP said "I would only remove this if it's catching on to your clothes or something as it looks okay" patient demanded to remove it as it's causing anxiety and practically had to beg for it to be removed.

Patient finally get its removed and biopsied.

Biopsy results come back as melanoma (skin cancer)

3 doctors, 1 dermatologist seen this mole and said nothing is wrong with it. Patient demanded for it to be removed.

Is this something that can be took further?

A very similar thing happened to me. I now have stage 4 melanoma but how does suing the NHS help? It just takes more funds away from the health service which then makes it more likely to happen to others. By all means complain to try and make sure moles are taken more seriously in future but suing the service that it’s presumably now treating your friend is not the answer.

I would certainly be making a complaint to the GP practice - 3 GPs from the same practice missing a cancerous mole COULD suggest that some more training is required practice wide.

At the very least I would expect them to be using this as a learning opportunity. I wouldn't expect anything financial.

I would be pushing for an investigation as there may be some learning to be had from this. Legal action is pointless. It's rather worrying that a melanoma was not suspected. I wonder if the patient has photos of the way the mole was changing?

For those people saying the patient is fine now - well we don't really know that do we?

To win a case for medical negligence, your friend would have to show that the standard of care from these doctors was below what she would have received from a reasonable body of other practitioners. Since a dermatologist missed this, it is highly unlikely that a case against any of the GPs would succeed. It is possible that the dermatologist failed in their duty of care - we don't know as she wasn't seen by another dermatologist. However, that brings us on to the next test. She would have to show that, as a result of the failure (if there was one), she was injured, or her existing condition got substantially worse. She has not suffered any injury and it seems her condition did not get substantially worse.

You would need to consult solicitors who specialise in this field if you want certainty, but I doubt she has a claim on the information you have given.

I hate these threads when a layperson friend tries to give legal advice.

your friend won’t get compensation based on “what ifs”. The fact of the matter is the problem didn’t continue to go undetected, they offered to and then removed it. It doesn’t matter that if it were you OP, you wouldn’t have gone back to the GP. I don’t even really think health anxiety is relevant, your friend had concerns and those concerns were taken seriously and addressed. The fact is that multiple medical professionals were involved here and came to same opinion so it isn’t like 1 medical professional went rogue - it is more likely that your friend had an atypical presentation

So they don’t think they can sue - don’t intend to do your asking the question because ?

I had a burn that the treatment by one nurse made it worse including scarring . My response was to talk to the gp that I felt she needed further training .

I don’t understand why your question isn’t about this ?

3 GPs and a specialist all though it was OK, also she had it removed anyway.

No.

I don't do clinical negligence, but I did have to study it. I am a lawyer.

Two obvious things:

1. think it was the Bolitho case: if another doctor would have done as the one being sued did, you haven't got a case. This is three!

2. what are you suing for? You can't just sue to get a consolation prize. You can only sue for the damages you have sustained.

I think your case would be against the dermatologist not the gp.
To those who think someone is fine once they have had melanoma removed so have no cause for complaint this is often not the case.
Mine was first misdiagnosed by gp who told me it was a reaction to an insect bite and to just ignore it which I then did for six months. It was really bothering me so I finally went back again against her advice and was only then referred to dermatology on the two week cancer pathway because I saw a locum at that appointment who was thankfully more on the ball.
I would have sued the gp but as I had shown her the lump during a consultation about another issue she hadn’t made any record of it in my notes so it was my word against hers.
It was removed but came back three years later and went on to be stage 4.
So much misinformation about skin cancer in general (not just this thread) so I wanted to clarify.
I think you should take legal advice OP and not rely on internet strangers.

I'm no expert so could be completely wrong but I considered legal action once and was told by a solicitor that they'd have to prove 4 things.

1. Did the doctor have a duty of care?
2. Did s/he fail in that duty?
3. Did the patient suffer harm?
4. Can that harm be directly attributed to failure of duty of care?

Obviously 1 is true in this case, but 2 is less clear cut - the GP made the appropriate referral and did in fact arrange for the suspect mole to be removed. Also 3 would probably be debatable, given it sounds like the cancer hasn't spread so the patient hasn't suffered additional harm due to any delays. I guess she might be able to argue psychological harm resulted. But if 2 and 3 can't be proven then nor can 4. There's no harm in discussing with a solicitor and even if your friends doesn't want to go down that route I would think it isn't unreasonable to write to the practice to let them know how she feels about her care as there may be improvements that can be made. But it may also be that they followed all the correct protocols and she was just unlucky - it does happen. (I got a really serious post operative infection but all the Trust's protocols had been followed so there was no evidence it was down to anyone's negligence, I was just bloody unlucky.)

What they going to sue for?

3 doctors and a dermatologist all said it didn't look suspicious. It obviously didn't look suspicious.

The first doctor wasn't worried but took due diligence to ask a specialist. 2nd GP wasn't concerned but took the safe option to remove. As did the 3rd

To sue for negligence you'd have to a)prove the doctor didn't do what they were supposed supposed (refer to a specialist -they did) b)prove the patient came to harm (the mole has been removed so no excess harm) and c) other doctors would have done something different -given 4 doctors all said it didn't look suspicious that's going to be difficult

It's not the fact that melanoma isn't serious, it's the fact that that appropriate step of removing it has been carried out. So no additional harm on top of having melanoma has occurred.

The OPs GP also referred to a dermatologist for advise which yours didn't do. That is the appropriate step for a GP to take in this case

The only person you could possibly complain against is the dermatologist, but given 3 other doctors also didn't feel it was suspicious you'd have a hard time proving the dermatologist did something wrong

No I don't think so. Sometimes moles don't look cancerous. Doctors can only go by their training. They're not infallible, and if this mole looked perfectly fine it's just an unfortunate situation that it did happen to be melanoma.

Also the fact that 4 different doctors all had the same opinion shows that it wasn't a case of a single doctor's negligence - the mole just didn't look concerning.

What was the financial loss to the patient?

I'm a clinical negligence solicitor.

In order to succeed with a claim, you have to satisfy two tests-
Breach of duty - was the standard of care below that of a reasonably competent clinician?
Causation - did the breach cause a worse outcome?

I think you'll struggle to show breach of duty. If multiple doctors came to the same conclusion, it's unlikely that the mole looked suspicious to them.

More importantly, there's no case for causation. The mole was removed in any event. Unless the delay in removal was so significant that the mole became malignant during the delay, I think the claim would fail.

By all means, call some firms for an initial assessment but I'd be surprised if anybody will take this case on.

Yes and my post said any case would likely be against the dermatologist not the gp.
How quickly something is removed is an issue too. Mine may not have needed a sentinel node biopsy if it had been removed when I first went to my gp and may not have progressed to stage 4 in later years.
Thanks to the person in OP’s post the lump was removed but quite easily may not have been had they not insisted. Maybe this will make the person’s health anxiety even worse who knows but as previously said the OP needs suitably qualified legal advice not us lot on mumsnet.

My mother had a lesion on her head. The GP said it didn't look suspicious when he referred her. A Consultant Dermatologist said it didn't look suspicious when she saw it. She had a biopsy and it came back as malignant melanoma. When she had surgery to remove it even the Plastics surgeon said it didn't look suspicious even though it was.

Did she demand compensation because it didn't in the first instance present as cancer? No, she was grateful if was dealt with.

No because the gp did remove it despite them being told it wasn't suspicious by an expert. How long between the initial visit and removal?