Mrs. L was fit, working and socially active well into her 60s. In 2015 she visited her GP due to balance issues. After several minor falls, she was referred to a neurologist, who arranged for an MRI.
The MRI revealed spinal cord compression due to osteoarthritis. Mrs L was referred to a neurosurgeon, who discussed decompression surgery, noting that while improvements were unlikely, surgery to decompress and stabilise the spine should prevent further deterioration. Known risk of the surgery were discussed.
The first operation took place in 2017 at University Hospital Coventry. During the operation, a cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leak was detected while drilling the spine. This was a known and treatable risk of the procedure. After surgery, Mrs. L experienced nausea, difficulty sitting up, and reducing arm mobility, requiring assistance for basic needs. Her symptoms persisted. Four days post-surgery, she and her daughter met with the neurosurgeon, who explained that the surgery was more complicated than than expected.
Mrs. L’s symptoms deteriorated. An MRI revealed a post-operative haematoma and significant fluid collection at the site of the CSF leak (which had supposedly been repaired). Further emergency surgery that evening found CSF under pressure. A further repair was carried out.
After the second surgery, Mrs. L had limited recollection, was in considerable pain, and unable to control her bladder. Another MRI once again indicated a fluid collection and further spinal cord compression. A third repair of the site was attempted.
Mrs. L was left with permanent paralysis to one side and required extensive medical equipment and a care package to enable her to return home. Her life was irreversibly changed.
Brindley Twist Tafft & James were instructed following a recommendation. Independent expert evidence from a consultant neurosurgeon was obtained. The expert’s opinion was that the management following the initial surgery was negligent in that there were several missed opportunities to identify the ongoing deterioration over the first few (critical) days. Liability was denied.
Mrs L sadly developed dementia during the covid crisis and was transferred to a care home.
Liability was denied, but following negotiations a settlement of £182,500 was achieved and approved by the Court, reflecting the fact that Mrs L was likely to have developed dementia and require care at the same stage that she did.
