Making a claim against the NHS for misdiagnosis

[Tommy21bn]

Hi All,

Just a quick query but has anyone made a claim against the NHS for misdiagnosis. Specifically, I was diagnosed with UC and in fact I have Crohn's. This meant my ileo-anal pouch operation was a disaster which almost led to my death.

Has anyone any experience of Solicitors or able to recommend anyone? I'd love to hear from someone with any kind of experience with the NHS Litigation Authority.

Many thanks everyone.

 

[Sophabulous]

Hi there,

From what I can gather it's a very long and stressful process, which many give up on after a couple of years. I was reading something the other day as I saw an ad online about claiming for Crohn's misdiagnosis.

I was curious as to how you can try to claim for something which is notoriously difficult to diagnose anyway. I thought it to be very unfair, but obviously post op complications and such are a different ball game.

From what I read, the cases you are most likely to win are the ones where you've needed extensive adaptation to your home and it's seriously impacted your ability to work as a result of their negligence.

It's something I would think very hard about if it were me, as with being ill too I don't know if I would manage the pressure. Speak to a solicitor and see what they think. I believe they usually want you to exhaust the hospital trusts complaints procedure and get them to admit fault and apologise before you can take it further.

Take care

 

[Sophabulous]

Oh and just to add, I think the claim has to be started within 3 years of the alleged negligence! That may just be in the case of misdiagnosis though.

 

[Tommy21bn]

Thanks! I've read that it is very stressful and any compensation is based upon the long term consequences of the misdiagnosis.

It will be interesting to see others experiences of making a claim and how difficult it is.

Thank you

 

[Sophabulous]

I'll try and find a post I saw on this subject a few months ago and copy the link here! Wish me luck

 

[Sophabulous]

Never mind, I found it but it was your post lol!

 

[Tommy21bn]

Lol, yup, I thought i'd try again as I can't seem to make my mind up and I thought more input would help.

The other problem is that I continue to see the same team that made the error for treatment.

Lots to think about.

 

[Pug Gamer]

I know someone who has made a claim for misdiagnosis and refusal to test for her mum, resulting in her death from cancer. I honestly wouldnt recommend it. The stress and refusal of treatment to the rest of the family was very bad. Youll find they pull ranks. I also have a family member who as a young child had a appendicitis and the wrong organs were removed. Resulting in thousands of pounds in london lawyer fees, years of horrendous stress. And nothing to show for it. I personally could have a case, but i honestly would not go through that.

 

[Tommy21bn]

Thanks for your input. Everyone seems to be saying the same; that in the long run it's just not worth it.

 

[Lizzie]

Crohns seems to be so often misdiagnosed as UC, but the medics don't admit they got it wrong, do they? In my case it didn't lead to dire consequences, but I knew all along I had Crohns (runs in the family and my symptoms were so familiar). However, as far as the GI is concerned, I did have UC and now I have Crohns, no misdiagnosis, just a change of disease. They will never, ever admit they got anything wrong.

I've never entered into litigation with the NHS but did put in a formal complaint about they way my husband was dealt with prior to his death from cancer, and they put every possible obstacle in the way of that complaint. I pursued it on principle, with a lot of help from others, and eventually got a very grudging acknowledgment that they had not acted properly (but no apology). It was phenomenally stressful and took a couple of years, even though there was no claim for compensation, and like others here, I don't advise taking them on unless you have vast reserves of determination and stamina.

 

[cmack]

Hi Tommy,

I wish you the best. I'm all buggered as well due to surgeries. You probably would need to be Bill Gates to afford the cost of a legal bill like that. I'm sorry that they screwed you over, I wish I was rich I'd pay the legal fees for you.


Talk to me any time, pm's are cool too.

cmack

 

[firebob]

With the way Chohns is diagnosed I do not think you would win in court unless there was gross negligence, but who was negligent. Could it of been person that interpreted the test results?

It's not like Crohn's will show up on a blood test, a MRI, a CT scan, a biopsy, or there is a medicine they can give you to rule it out.

The last time i was admitted to the hospital for a "Crohn's related abscess" biased off a CT scan I was told by a few Doc's that there is a good chance i do not have Crohn's and they think it is diverticulitis related after they went through my chart. I have been doing better with a diet change than when I was taking medication, but time will tell.

 

[cmack]

Hey firebob,

Give me a holler some time bud.

 

[Scipio]

Crohns seems to be so often misdiagnosed as UC, but the medics don't admit they got it wrong, do they?

Not to defend any GI who is truly negligent, but the main problem in most of these cases is that UC and Crohn's are closely related diseases with many overlapping symptoms and many overlapping treatments. In pretty much any list of IBD diagnoses (in a clinical trial for example) you'll see a checklist that says:

Diagnosis
1) UC
2) CD
3) Indeterminate

They need that 3rd choice because there are always some confusing cases where it's just impossible to decide.

In fact, there are still some "old school" docs who consider UC and CD to be simply somewhat different manifestations of the same disease. And on the flip side there are also docs and researchers who consider IBD to consist of three diseases instead of the normal two or one - namely UC, ileocolonic or colonic CD, and ileal CD. So are the docs who still lump ileal and ileocolonic IBD together under the label Crohn's "wrong" in their diagnosis? In IBD-land the art a making a diagnosis is often far from clear-cut, which means that any resulting legal suits will seldom be open-and-shut.

So no one would deny that medical negligence exists. And it's certainly possible for a doc to get the IBD diagnosis "wrong," but in some, perhaps many, of those confusing cases it's simply an instance of more and better information becoming available as the disease develops that leads to a cleaner or more specific diagnosis.

 

[Sophabulous]

Not to defend any GI who is truly negligent, but the main problem in most of these cases is that UC and Crohn's are closely related diseases with many overlapping symptoms and many overlapping treatments. In pretty much any list of IBD diagnoses (in a clinical trial for example) you'll see a checklist that says:



Diagnosis

1) UC

2) CD

3) Indeterminate



They need that 3rd choice because there are always some confusing cases where it's just impossible to decide.



In fact, there are still some "old school" docs who consider UC and CD to be simply somewhat different manifestations of the same disease. And on the flip side there are also docs and researchers who consider IBD to consist of three diseases instead of the normal two or one - namely UC, ileocolonic or colonic CD, and ileal CD. So are the docs who still lump ileal and ileocolonic IBD together under the label Crohn's "wrong" in their diagnosis? In IBD-land the art a making a diagnosis is often far from clear-cut, which means that any resulting legal suits will seldom be open-and-shut.



So no one would deny that medical negligence exists. And it's certainly possible for a doc to get the IBD diagnosis "wrong," but in some, perhaps many, of those confusing cases it's simply an instance of more and better information becoming available as the disease develops that leads to a cleaner or more specific diagnosis.

I agree with you there, unfortunately we are guinea pigs until something is dreamt up to differentiate better. I've always known it was a very difficult to diagnose disease, I was treated for something totally different for 12 months before a proper diagnosis.

On the other hand, like you said if there is clear cut negligence then it's a different story. Doctors have to weigh up the risk/benefit of any procedure and be able to justify and defend their decision if need be, and occasionally they get it wrong. I saw something the other day saying that American doctors are so keen to do scans for head injuries that they quite possibly causing brain cancers!

 

[Lady Organic]

I am wondering what would have been your option of treatment if they had though you had CD at that time?

 

[Tommy21bn]

Many thanks everyone for sharing your thoughts and experiences. It's what makes our community so strong.

I'll have to keep thinking about it. I'm still inclined to atleast to have an initial session with a Solicitor. Just to see what the options are.

Thanks again everyone.

 

[Sophabulous]

Many thanks everyone for sharing your thoughts and experiences. It's what makes our community so strong.



I'll have to keep thinking about it. I'm still inclined to atleast to have an initial session with a Solicitor. Just to see what the options are.



Thanks again everyone.

I think that's a good idea, you can make a decision with all the facts once you've done so.

Good luck!