Samantha Sims, acted for the Claimant Mr WM and made a claim on his behalf. Mr WM was diagnosed with oesophageal cancer in October 2018.
As a consequence of the negligent failure of the First Defendant to perform a gastroscopy in March 2015 with reasonable care and skill and to take biopsies, there was a failure to identify an area of severe dysplasia and Barrett’s oesophagus in the oesophagus at the oesophagogastric junction, which would or should have been treated with endoscopic ablation. On the balance of probabilities, the lesion would have been cured before malignancy arose.
There was also a failure from the Second Defendant to perform a gastroscopy in February 2016 with reasonable care and skill and in particular, negligently failed to identify an area of abnormality at the gastroesophageal junction and hiatus hernia and failed to take biopsies. Thereafter, they failed to investigate Mr WM’s progressive symptoms of pain in the epigastric area, reflux, regurgitation, food sticking and frank dysphagia (difficulty in swallowing). As a consequence of the delay in diagnosis on the part of the Second Defendant, Mr WM underwent more extensive surgery than would otherwise have been required and required chemotherapy that would otherwise have been avoided. As a result, but for the delay in diagnosis, Mr WM would have been cured.
Breach of Duty
It was alleged that but for the breach of duty on the part of the First Defendant, with adequate treatment the Claimant would not have developed invasive carcinoma, and would have avoided the increasing symptoms in the period of delay leading to his diagnosis, and would have avoided surgery, chemotherapy and his current symptoms.
It was also alleged that but for the breach of duty on the part of the Second Defendant, treatment would have been with surgery alone, and he would have avoided the increasing symptoms leading to his diagnosis, surgery would have been less extensive, and he would have avoided chemotherapy and his current symptoms.
The Claimant claimed for pain and suffering for progressive symptoms during the period of delay and avoidable invasive cancer treatment, past care and assistance provided by his wife, past loss of earnings, occupational therapy, past equipment, past medical expenses, past adaptations, future care and assistance, future loss of earnings, future equipment, future loss of services and Chiropody.
Although both Defendants denied liability, the case settled when the Claimant accepted the Defendant’s offer of £240,000 after negotiations took place.