L & M -v-Lady Heyes Glamping Centre
The 2 Claimants sustained physical, psychiatric & respiratory injuries in an incident which was reported upon in the national media.
A specialist Forensic Fire Expert was instructed to assess the extent to which the Defendants were negligent for failing to provide an alternative means of escape from the Glamping Pod they were using which contained a real fire burner.
Initially denying that they were in any way responsible, offers were made by The Defendants and the cases settled before Trial and after Court Proceedings had been issued.
L -v- Total Fitness Gyms
The Claimant who was disabled, suffered significant injuries whilst on the Defendants premises.
The Defendants chose to deny any breach of their lawful duty of care to the Claimant by way of The Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 and so Court Proceedings were commenced resulting in an out of Court Settlement for the Claimant.
D -v- Leyton Healthcare Limited
The Claimant was a Protected Party due to dementia and suffered injuries whilst in a respite care home due to failings of the company providing her with the care. Damages for the Claimant were awarded and approved in The High Court.
G -v- Lloyds Bank
The Claimant was an employee of the Defendant working at their local branch when masked assailants raided the bank.
Formal allegations of negligence were made against the bank and as such, the Defendant agreed to deal with the matter and pay to The Claimant significant compensation damages on a without prejudice basis.
The injuries were purely of a psychiatric nature and for which medical evidence was obtained from a consultant psychiatrist.
F -v- The Waltons
The Claimant sustained injuries and brought a claim for damages against her Landlords.
The matter proceeded to a full Trial Hearing following which the Claimant was awarded damages in full.
It was commented upon by the Trial Judge that the evidence of the Defendants was not believed.
If it is required in any case, it is only correct that Claimant Lawyers will take the appropriate steps in Court proceedings to ensure that the authenticity of all evidence of any Defendant is scrutinised. (see Spencer Smith -v- Ashwell Maintenance Limited)
P -v- Ministry of Justice
The Claimant was a private in the army when he sustained injuries as a result of the defective premises of the Defendant.
As the Claimant was an infantry man, the MOJ medical board decided to discharge the Claimant. The case was settled after Court Proceedings were issued as a result of the Defendant at first refusing to make any acceptable offers of settlement.
R-v- Covea Insurance
The Claimant sustained a fractured spine when she fell down a spiral staircase in her own home as a direct result of inadequate maintenance of the staircase by her landlord.
Liability was denied which led to the Claimant instituting Court proceedings resulting in the case the case being settled shortly before trial.
Mr L S V Wrightington, Wigan & Leigh NHS Trust
In May 2020 Mr S had started to suffer with lower abdominal pain on his right-hand side. Mr S was also suffering with pain around his right testicle and groin area, and as a result, made an appointment with his GP. Following the consultation with his GP, Mr S was advised to attend the defendant’s hospital for a review via a general surgeon.
Mr S did as instructed and attended the defendant’s hospital. Whilst originally investigated for a hernia. Mr S, following a long wait within A&E was eventually seen by a general surgeon. Mr S was admitted and placed on antibiotics, with a CT scan booked for the next day.
The CT scan, performed on the 21st May 2020 had confirmed that Mr S did not have a hernia, but instead an abscess measuring 3.4cmx2cm. Mr S was given antibiotics to take home and was discharged, with the hospital confirming it was not big enough for further action.
Mr S continued in pain, and whilst he was taking the antibiotics, did not feel as though his situation was improving. By the 4th June 2020 Mr S re-attended the defendant’s hospital, where a further CT scan was performed. The CT scan, whilst identifying the abscess to have reduced in size, had still confirmed a 1.4cm abscess, again he was provided oral antibiotics and discharged.
Again, not improving, Mr S attended the defendant’s hospital for a third time, on the 5th August 2020, another CT scan was performed which identified the abscess had grown to 2.4cm, with the defendant hospital again providing Mr S with antibiotics and sending him home.
This continued and again our client was in the defendant hospital on the 24th August 2020, this time, Mr S was put forward for an MRI scan to take place in the next coming days, and again, sent home.
The MRI scan took place on the 1st September 2020 which confirmed the abscess to be 4×3.5cm. Mr S was still only provided with antibiotics and sent home.
Sadly, for Mr S, he had to continue in pain until the 19th September 2020, where the abscess eventually burst, he attended a different hospital in Manchester where urgent surgery took place to drain the abscess.
A letter of claim was submitted alleging that the defendant hospital had failed to act reasonably, considering Mr S had attended multiple times with the same issue, providing the antibiotics didn’t work, surgery should have taken place as early as the 5th August 2020 to avoid the clients unnecessary pain and suffering, as well as the abscess bursting.
The defendant hospital admitted that not only should surgery have taken place on the 5th August 2020, but this could have been performed by draining the abscess via a needle, and Mr S could have avoided the surgery altogether. The matter settled shortly after the defendant’s hospital admitted negligence in the sum of £7,500 for the avoidable pain, suffering, and scarring.
Mr D O v Mid & South Essex NHS Trust
Mr O had previously suffered a Grade 3 pressure sore back in 1992, this previous pressure sore required surgery to remove dead tissue as to stop the area becoming infected.
Mr O was admitted late October 2021 to the defendant hospital with an episode of Gout in his left leg. Following a diagnosis of cellulitis, he remained in the defendant hospital for observations, at this point Mr O was able to mobilise himself and was eventually fit enough for discharge on the 28th October 2021.
Unfortunately, Mr O suffered a cardiac arrest on the 31st October 2021 and was admitted back into hospital. During this period, he was left in bed with no plan to move Mr O to avoid pressure sores. Despite Mr O’s wife advising the defendant hospital’s staff about his previous pressure sore, Mr O’s care did not change.
Mr O was discharged from hospital on the 2nd November 2021, but upon returning home his wife had noticed a pressure sore on his behind. Following a telephone call with the defendant hospital, district nurses were then sent out to dress the pressure sore for 4 weeks until the pressure sore healed.
Mr O sent a letter of claim to the defendant hospital alleging that they had failed to mobilise him during his second period in hospital. The defendant hospital had originally denied the claim on the basis that he should not have been moved as he had suffered a cardiac arrest. The defendant hospital did, however, then put forward an offer to settle Mr O’s claim.
Mr O settled his claim in the sum of £3,000.