Suing for medical negligance

Hikari Kisugi said:
It seems a very odd thing to attempt.
Click to expand...


Yeah, this is the thing I dont get. Undamaged tooth, with no previous knocks to that part of the face and no damage shown to it on the xray, just massive infection around and deep in the bone of my 'UL2'. It was the 'UL1' the lead dentist decided he should go into post definitive treatment.

To me it sounds like it was guess work to undertake work on it.

I do have a question regarding that actually. Would it have been better to have drained vai the gumline, finished up a course of antibiotics and then (at a later date) try to ascertain whether the 'UL1' needed work? If they thought it was potentially another source of infection? Or would it be considered okay to just dive in on a suspicion? What errs me ofc is as stated this was a totally undamaged tooth, one which had never given me any pain during any of this. Thanks.
 
shadesofgrey said:
Yeah, this is the thing I dont get. Undamaged tooth, with no previous knocks to that part of the face and no damage shown to it on the xray, just massive infection around and deep in the bone of my 'UL2'. It was the 'UL1' the lead dentist decided he should go into post definitive treatment.

To me it sounds like it was guess work to undertake work on it.

I do have a question regarding that actually. Would it have been better to have drained vai the gumline, finished up a course of antibiotics and then (at a later date) try to ascertain whether the 'UL1' needed work? If they thought it was potentially another source of infection? Or would it be considered okay to just dive in on a suspicion? What errs me ofc is as stated this was a totally undamaged tooth, one which had never given me any pain during any of this. Thanks.
Click to expand...

Is the tooth reacting to cold?
It just sounds odd.
How did the ul2 die? Decay?
How long had it been dead?

I can ask questions here but i wont give advice, as it would lock the thread.
 
That's perfectly understandable, sorry :) maybe you could answer in trust? sorry, I should have trusted you in the first place.

UL1? yes, that reacts to cold, heat [Edit: Actually heat is not so much of a problem] and also certain food stuffs, I got a bit of chocolate in the hole from where they started to drill the new root canal and that was particularly sharp. I gather from the new dentist that the drill hole stops just short of the pulp btw. She blew some cold air on there and yes the tooth reacted. If I cover the hole while drinking something cold the tooth is fine.

UL2 had a filling to the side years ago (UL3 has previously been root canaled and capped) I'm presuming this was the source of infection (the UL2 filling) , and I presume it was due to internal decay. UL1 as mentioned never had anything done to it ever.

I have no idea how long UL2 had been dead, tho' im sure it was, when it was worked on there was no pain at all... Unlike when they started on UL1 (mega ouch). Which might be pretty odd? The tooth was not bothering me untill the 'massive' infection took hold in the upper jaw bone. Something like the size of a 10p coin with the centre laid onto the tip of UL2's root?

Thanks for the time, appreciated.
 
Last edited:
King85 said:
pic
Click to expand...

Yep

Minstadave said:
You're talking utter tripe.
Click to expand...

Nope

PikeyPriest said:
Wow, what a fountain of knowledge you must be having seen several appendix scars....

A gangrenous perforated appendix that is retrocaecal and formed a complex mass involving the right colon and ileum can be an absolute mess to try to treat. I have performed several appendicectomies that take 25 minutes with a nice small scar (as a surgical trainee), I have also seen senior registrars calling consultants for assistance due to the complexity of some cases.

The fact that they used staples in the OPs case suggests that the appendix had perforated with pus around the area and a high chance of wound infection, as it is normal to close the skin with subcuticular sutures otherwise.

The only way the OP will know for sure is to either look at his notes or speak to the team responsible at the hospital to find out more about the operation and the symptoms he suffers from now. All the abuse of the OP is completely uncalled for as he just wanted to know how he would find out more. Equally the completely misguided comments by people that haven't even seen an appendicectomy performed are bringing nothing to this discussion.
Click to expand...

Good to know, I'm merely going by my experiences and others experiences. Now that I know, I'm aware of why the op probably needed more stiches / staples than 'normal'.
 
Minstadave said:
Best thing posted so far :D

I was going to post a more intelligent rebuttal to the "I've had surgery I know everything" dude but I was shopping and can't type and walk. PikeyPriest has cleared up everything I wanted to say nicely.
Click to expand...

Seriously, what the hell, someones always come by and said the reasons he may have loads of staples as opposed to a tidy scar. Alrite? =/
 
You made some ridiculous statements on a subject on which you appear to not know enough about.

I was merely pointing out that although you stated very confidently "Your surgeon was just messy quite frankly" and "For removing an appendix yes, that's ridiculous" you were infact talking nonsense.
 
Minstadave said:
You made some ridiculous statements on a subject on which you appear to not know enough about.

I was merely pointing out that although you stated very confidently "Your surgeon was just messy quite frankly" and "For removing an appendix yes, that's ridiculous" you were infact talking nonsense.
Click to expand...

As stated, I was giving my opinion on what I have seen, and as I even said, I've not seen one done like that before....And again as said, there are all sorts of thing that can happen, you normally have to agree to things like that before the op.

Anyway, someones already corrected me as to why staples may have been used, and i've accepted that :)
 
Delvis said:
As stated, I was giving my opinion on what I have seen, and as I even said, I've not seen one done like that before....And again as said, there are all sorts of thing that can happen, you normally have to agree to things like that before the op.

Anyway, someones already corrected me as to why staples may have been used, and i've accepted that :)
Click to expand...

Shicky was told he may need to have an open incision. When he did recieve said incision he decided he didn't like it, waited 18 months for it to dawn on him he could sue someone for carrying out potentially life-saving surgery.

Now I agree that his surgery sounds less than straightforward but it won't have any mileage as a claim. He can complain and he'll may get an apology for not fully detailing what an open incision entails but I doubt it will go any further.
 
Minstadave said:
Shicky was told he may need to have an open incision. When he did recieve said incision he decided he didn't like it, waited 18 months for it to dawn on him he could sue someone for carrying out potentially life-saving surgery.

Now I agree that his surgery sounds less than straightforward but it won't have any mileage as a claim. He can complain and he'll may get an apology for not fully detailing what an open incision entails but I doubt it will go any further.
Click to expand...

I agree, if the op didn't like it, then it should indeed have been brought to more attention closer to the time.

The problem is probably as you say lack of explanation. As it should be explained for instance there can be some numbing of the area.
 
Minstadave said:
Shicky was told he may need to have an open incision. When he did recieve said incision he decided he didn't like it, waited 18 months for it to dawn on him he could sue someone for carrying out potentially life-saving surgery.

Now I agree that his surgery sounds less than straightforward but it won't have any mileage as a claim. He can complain and he'll may get an apology for not fully detailing what an open incision entails but I doubt it will go any further.
Click to expand...

This sums up the thread. No win no fee lawyers won't bother with this case.

Modern medicine has come along way as most people now perceive an appendicectomy as a minor op without a second thought. For most cases this is correct, but a peritoneal cavity full of pus is not a "minor" case.

Laparoscopic surgery has come on a long way, but it is still not suitable for all cases. Do you have a small incision at your belly button too?

I am biased of course, but as with any profession with hands on skills, quality can vary from place to place and person to person. Staples are good in contaminated wounds, but quite often the skin is left practically open to avoid skin infection.
 
Kamwah said:
The people at A&E are morons unfortunately but you won't get anything from this IMO.
Click to expand...

You sir are a ******* idiot, how dare you make a sweeping suggestion, I wouldnt bother ever having an accident if this is how you feel. I could rant at you but id probably get a ban.


Also OP, come on now.....get a grip, Id have a scar over 4 quadrant peritonitis and its complications anyday. Do you realise how lucky you have been???

rotters
 
Kamwah said:
I'm going to throw something out there that may seem farfetched but.... Do you think they took a kidney? ;)

Even with an ultrasound its not always possible to ID what organ they're looking at unless it's something uniquely shaped.

The people at A&E are morons unfortunately but you won't get anything from this IMO.
Click to expand...

'Herp derp people who save lives every day are morons because there are still mistakes in modern medicine' :rolleyes:
 
Dimple said:
Just starting a Clinical Negligence claim costs the taxpayer money and something the NHS can't claim back.
For example, let's say a bloke hurts his elbow and loses lots of money so his mates tell him to pretend he has been to A&E and put a claim in.
He goes to the Solicitor who doesn't know any different and starts a Pre Action Disclosure.
As soon as that arrives on my desk it will involve 3 people who have now got to find EVERY medical record for this patient which will include hospital notes, ortho notes, oncology notes, culled notes, EDMS, Pathology, X-Rays going back to when he was a child, X-Ray reports, ICU charts, SSCU charts, micro-fiche, Casualty records, therapy notes and every letter wrote (plus other stuff that escapes me now).
EVEN if the claim for a certain date (lets say 17 November 2011) the Solicitor will want EVERYTHING.
Now it could be that within 2 minutes I had seen that the patient had never attended A&E since 2007 but we would still have to go through with the disclosure.
I may ring the Solicitor and ask if they got the date right because he had never attended A&E but the Solicitor will still ask for EVERYTHING.
Finding some of the records will involve other Health Professionals so the money soon adds up and finally a Clinician will have to give consent to let the records be disclosed.
At that point two of us will read every single word of that patients records to make sure there's nothing belonging to somebody else or there might be something that needs extra consent from the patient (eg HIV).
It will then go to the Solicitor who at that point should notice that the patient never attended A&E and is making it up but I will guarantee the Solicitor will ask for the missing records of 17 November 2011 and a tennis match will now occur between us.
It could be ages before the Solicitor will drop the case but all this time it has cost the taxpayer money for somebody's blatant lies.
Click to expand...

do patient records ever go missing?

so basically a patients successful claim can be down to whether their records can be located or not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom