Have I got threshold for a successful negligence claim?

[shejokes11]

Eight years ago I was 5 months pregnant when I first learned of my pregnancy. At my initial scans, I was informed that my baby might have short legs (suspected dwarfism) or Down syndrome.
• Despite concerns about the low amniotic fluid and developmental anomalies, I was not offered genetic testing or counselling beyond the amniocentesis. I chose to decline this due to its associated risks (infection, miscarriage). Instead, I was advised that the fluid levels could fluctuate, and the condition might improve over time.
• I was not given the full range of testing options (such as non-invasive testing) that could have provided clearer answers earlier on. If I had known the extent of the conditions my child might face, I could have made a more informed decision regarding my pregnancy.
2. Failure to Identify and Address the Full Range of Health Issues
• The hospital’s failure to diagnose Peter’s Anomaly, PKD1, and other associated conditions early has led to delayed treatment and worsened outcomes.
• My child’s conditions were not fully understood or communicated during pregnancy, which resulted in missed opportunities for intervention and proper preparation for the challenges my child would face.
My child is still being diagnosed with other conditions as he grows and is missing genes and has a few other genes which are doubled. I am in utter disbelief that he is already blind but is now being diagnosed with several other conditions such as kidney disease. If I had been told from the beginning I would have chose to terminate due to unfairly putting him in this predicament of pain and suffering. He is expected to lose his vision in all totality and he already has cysts appearing all over his kidneys.he is still undergoing many tests and more issues may suffice. I am raising a negligence claim however due to the lack of successful claims I am thinking twice does anyone think I have a claim or not.

I’m sorry you and your child have had such a rough time.

No one here can tell you whether you’ve got a case. You need to talk to a legal firm specialising in medical injury, negligence and malpractice. Usually you’ll be able to speak to someone to outline your case and they’ll tell you if they think there’s anything in it. Check your household insurance, it might cover the legal fees if you have legal protection included.

One of my parents died as a result of medical negligence and we were really well represented by Irwin Mitchell.

The amniocentesis would have determined if further testing would have been needed. By declining that, would there have been additional markers on just scans alone that would have determined these conditions?

Not necessarily as even with the current genetic testing they cannot rule out the conditions so that I’m unaware would have changed anything.

This might help you, OP.
https://www.tbilaw.co.uk/knowledge-hub/how-to-sue-the-nhs-for-negligence-claim-compensation/

Did you ask if there was a chance of anything else at the time?

I’m really sorry you and your child have had such a rough time. I would always recommend seeking your own paid legal advice but from my own knowledge, off the top of my head here’s my thoughts:

1. For negligence you typically only have 3 years to claim, so you’re very likely too late for at least some of your points.
2. Regarding the non-invasive testing options, as you were 5 months pregnant by the time you knew, you were not eligible for the combined screening which is done at the 12 week scan. Over 20 weeks pregnant the NHS guidance and procedure is to go straight to amniocentesis, this is because over 20 weeks you have less time to make decisions. Things like an NIPT are just a screening test, the amnio is diagnostic so even if you had an NIPT done you would still need am amnio to confirm. As I say, this is the guidance they follow and so it is not negligent, for your stage of pregnancy the guidance is go straight to amniocentesis- any doctor would have followed the same guidance. You were offered the amnio which would have provided you the answers to make a decision about the pregnancy- that’s why they offer it. By declining to do that you accepted those risks, so there is no negligence to this point.
3. Regarding failure to diagnose, will break the elements down
4. Peters Anomaly is very rare, lots of even very experienced children’s doctors would not recognise it immediately and it is well known that it can be difficult to diagnose. Again, not negligence, any medical negligence claims have to pass the Bolam/Bolitho tests. Essentially this is to say that if another doctor would have made the same decisions, they are not negligent. As this condition is so well known to be both rare & difficult to diagnose, it’s a pretty safe assumption that they will be able to pass the test here and wouldn’t be found negligent.
5. PKD1 to my understanding anyway is often difficult to diagnose in children, especially if there is no family history which would prompt a test. In most children the cysts start off so small that even if you did end up having a scan they wouldn’t show, it is very common for this to not be diagnosed until teen/adult years. Babies with PKD1 are often completely health & normally presenting as babies and the cysts become bigger over time as they get older, hence why diagnosis happens at a later age. Again, this is common knowledge, it’s the norm for this to not be diagnosed young, it’s very unfortunate but not medical negligence- unless there is a clear family history babies are not routinely tested for PKD1.

I’m truly sorry you’re struggling OP but in my opinion there is no case here. You were offered the amniocentesis, this is in line with the NHS guidance at your stage of pregnancy so not negligent, and you chose not to have it. That is absolutely your choice, but it does have risks. The timescale for diagnosis since then does not = negligence, especially considering as I say it’s very normal for PKD1 to be missed in an 8 year old even with scans, and Peters Anomaly is rare and difficult to diagnose so again, really unfortunate but not negligent.

I’m really sorry for what you’re going through, OP, it sounds incredibly tough.

I had started a reply to you earlier but @Mrsttcno1 has given you an excellent assessment of the position, within the limits of what we can know and say based on your post, and there isn’t much I could add. You could have a preliminary discussion with a medical negligence solicitor to get more concrete advice but, unfortunately, I expect they will concur with what she says.

To add to what appears to be the correct advice. Your child has conditions that are naturally caused and not a result of something the NHS did to your person, that changed the outcomes for your child’s life.

logically speaking, you can not assert that you would have had an abortion had you known about all your child’s problems, because you were protective enough to not take a risky procedure to find out.
And even if you did take the test it may not have been as conclusive as, one might hope.

also you can not say in retrospect your decision would have been to terminate the pregnancy at the time , that is your view now , not then.

As sad as i can be for a stranger, i do not understand why you are upset with the NHS.

Sorry to be blunt- there's a reason i'm asking. If you knew the full extent of your child's health problems, following adequate, genetic testing, would you have terminated?

If the current genetic testing cannot rule out the conditions, then there's no claim. Where's the negligence.If the tests wouldn't have shown it up anyway.

Upset because I wasn’t offered any genetic testing, not offered answers, still no diagnosis, the olighydramnious (low fluid) was brushed over and not offered amnioinfusion, not offered a fetal mri. These may seem unnecessary but could have revealed what they were NOT looking for. They only cared about Down syndrome and dwarfism which were ruled out only for me to be told pregnancy will be fine as these conditions have been ruled out.

I would have terminated if you see what my eight year old goes thorough any sane person would terminate. The reason why they cannot find a linkage to his eye condition is because they require more testing that they do not have equipment for however because the pkd1 was detected and the facial features and eye disease led them to think it’s axenfield or peters anomaly. And that’s exactly my point if they cannot find it in these highly invasive genetic testing then the amnio wouldn’t have shown anything either other than the pkd1 but as the eye condition wasn’t present when I was pregnant they would never have made the link regardless.

Im very grateful for your answers, I’m a young mum trying to find a diagnosis for my son to take him private hopefully and I am overwhelmed by the lack of information on his condition which is affecting me.

Truly I was hoping that the fluid wasn’t a big factor and because major things were ruled out I never imagined the eye disease which is a factor I would of terminated for and as for the invasive testing I was 16 alone in all of my appointments with zero advice and guidance from the doctors.

You were only 16? How difficult for you.
Didn't your mother go with you to any appointments?

I wasn’t allowed to communicate with my family due to SS and you can guess I was a single mum unfortunately. I didn’t have any advice I genuinely wish I took the amniocentesis or had someone to advise me otherwise. Who knows? Maybe I would have answers now x

Oh dear so you are about 24 year old dealing with a severely disabled child.

that statement smacked me between the eyes.

I am very sad for your situation, it is not what anybody would ask for. There is a board on mumsnet for parents who have a child with special needs which you might find helpful.

you sound very bright by the way, not wanting to patronise.

I grew up a lot no choice but to, thankyou for your kind words and sympathy. unfortunately that was my reality no fantasy kind of birth literally problematic from the moment I found out I was pregnant till now.

Ive run a few wrongful birth claims in my career.

It's your claim not the child's. You claim the extra costs of having a disabled child you otherwise would have terminated had you been told the results.

There are time limits for bringing claims.

There are three years to bring a claim.

If it's the child's claim to make, time starts running when they reach eighteen so until their twenty first birthday.

But it's not the child's claim, it's your claim. You were sixteen. The three year time period didn't start to run until your eighteenth birthday because you weren't yet an adult. The time period for bringing a claim possibly expired on your twenty first birthday.

Obviously this is just rough and ready from the details you've posted and I would seek a solicitor immediately, without delay. I mean tomorrow start making enquiries.

OP, please see if you can speak to a solicitor about the time limit point. There are special rules for negligence affecting children, so please don't take what is said here as gospel. The issues in your case seem quite complex and I think you need proper advice if you can get it on a no win no fee basis.

Hey Thankyou for reaching out, losing my brain cells here!
what would I say to the solicitors and how would I go about this please I am not very knowledgeable about situations like this. Xx

I see that someone with more specialist knowledge has responded, so please ignore my post!

I have contacted a few solicitors but I believe the way I explain just makes it very confusing really so need help with this matter all help will be appreciated x

But if the OP is now 24/5 she's well past the age threshold (if it's 21) to make a claim.

What are those rules? Are you a solicitor?

The facts of the case aren't that complex. Specialist clinical negligence, solicitors see claims like this all the time.

Have been told this actually so I’m unsure. Apppsrently it’s from a date you noticed there was negligence also so in my case I noticed when the genetic results came back last year x