The implants which have hit the headlines in the last few weeks are made by Poly Implant Prothese (PIP). You do not say the type of implant you had, but if it was PIP, then you should seek medical advice.

Investigations into implants in  in 2010 found that PIP implants had a higher rate of rupture and the silicone used was not medical grade. Since then, the French Government has recommended precautionary removal of the implants with the government covering the cost. In , 30,000 women have the implants, 1000 have ruptured and over 500 women have had them removed. Whilst some of the women have developed cancer, it has not been established that this is as a result of the implants.

In  however, there has been conflicting advice as to the best way to proceed. The Chief Medical Officer Professor Dame Sally Davies said “We currently have no evidence to make us think they should have the PIP breast implants removed”. This is because there is no clear evidence that they have caused cancer or any other problems aside from rupture. If there has been rupture, advice must be sort immediately.

If you are at all concerned you must contact your GP straight away and if you have PIP implants which have ruptured or need removal then you may well have a case against PIP who made the implants.

Jeanette Whyman, Personal Injury Solicitor.

It was appropriate for your GP to refer you on both occasions although had your GP referred you for a gynaecological scan initially, you may not have had to attend the hospital twice.

It would seem that the original scan was carried out by a general ultra-sonographer (one who undertakes ultrasound scanning) and I understand fibroids and adenomyosis can look similar. Once you were seen by the specialist the correct diagnosis was made and advice given. Both conditions can be treated by surgery and it would have been necessary for you to be advised as to your options if you had a fibroid in any event. You do not say the period of time between the two consultations, but if it was only a matter of weeks, then it is unlikely you would be able to claim successfully but if you wish to discuss this with me please don’t hesitate to contact me.

Jeanette Whyman, Personal Injury Solicitor.

Jeanette Whyman , Personal Injury Solicitor.

Cosmetic surgery is an invasive procedure (meaning in this case the skin is cut) carried out usually under general anaesthetic. It will therefore carry the usual risks associated with surgery and anaesthetic, such as infection.

Surgeons in this country must have undertaken extensive training and be registered with the GMC in order to practice. Every country has its own methods of training and registering doctors and these are not necessarily universal. You cannot assume the doctor who will perform your surgery will be trained to the standard set in the UK.

You must bear in mind that even if the doctor was trained in England, if the surgery does not go as well as you had hoped, you would have no claim through the English courts. As the operation was conducted in an Eastern European country by a doctor employed at that hospital then any action you bring must be in that country also. (There are some exceptions to this rule but these are unlikely to apply in your case.)

You cannot therefore bring any action against the NHS or the hospital where the surgeon was trained as he in now practising abroad and that is where he will administer treatment to you.

As to whether you undergo the surgery this of course is a decision that only you can make. I would advise you to carry out thorough research on the clinic and the doctors practising there and there success rates before embarking on your trip.

Jeanette Whyman , Personal Injury Solicitor.

According to NHS Blood and Transplant, patients with ME or chronic fatigue syndrome will not be able to donate blood “as a precaution to protect the donor’s safety by ensuring their condition is not made worse by donating blood”. This policy is already in place for other relapsing conditions such as Parkinson’s Disease.

However the ME Association believes the ban is to protect blood recipients from the illness. They believe the illness may be caused by a virus.

Whilst some research in the  has linked ME sufferers with a virus known as XMRV, more recent research in the  has failed to demonstrate such a connection.

Whilst it is extremely important for you to have the proper diagnosis for your condition, and for your condition to be treated appropriately, I think it would be difficult to link this to your transfusion. The reason I say this is because the research is so conflicting. If clear link is established in the future, you may well be able to seek compensation at that point.

Jeanette Whyman, Personal Injury Solicitor.

There are many causes of abdominal pain and it can be difficult to identify the source of the problem. Your GP referred you to a Gynaecologist for investigation and you do not say whether the investigation revealed any problem. As the pain persisted, you were referred again and ultimately a hysterectomy was carried out. Presumably this did not resolve the pain and so you were referred to a Gastro Enterologist who diagnosed Crohn’s Disease. I assume you are now being treated for this and the pain has subsided or reduced.

If the gynaecological investigations did not reveal any problems, then it would be reasonable to look for other sources of the pain and, as ultimately happened, you were referred to another specialty. The question then arises whether you should have been referred earlier – before the hysterectomy was carried out. In order to answer this, a thorough examination of you GP and Hospital records will be necessary.

If it can be shown that you should have had other investigations, (before the hysterectomy was carried out) your case may well succeed and you would be compensated for the lost opportunity to have children with your new partner.

I would urge you to seek advice as quickly as possible.

Jeanette Whyman, Personal Injury Solicitor.

Legal aid is available for these claims but is means tested: if your earnings and savings are over a certain level, you will not be eligible for legal aid which may be true for you but if your are not eligible, we can look at other ways of funding your claim. 

Many insurance policies carry Legal Expense Insurance (LEI) which means the claim would be funded from your insurance company.  You may already have this cover on your Home Contents Policy or your car insurance. 

Your Solicitor may be willing to take on your case on any "no win no fee" basis or "Conditional Fee Agreement" (CFA).  This means you do not pay your solicitors costs if you do not succeed.  Your solicitor will only get paid if the case succeeds, such costs being recovered from the GP or hospital.

Also you may wish to pursue your case on a private paying basis where you will pay the solicitors costs and all the disbursements yourself.

If court proceedings are issued and served on the defendant (i.e. GP or hospital) and your claim does not succeed, then you may be responsible for the defendant's costs and disbursements.  If you are in receipt of legal aid, it is unlikely you will be asked to pay.  If you have LEI, this will meet the defendant's costs.  If you instruct your solicitor on a CFA, you can take out insurance to cover the defendant's costs.

There are many ways to fund the claim and we can advise you on the best way to fund your claim.

Jeanette Whyman, Personal Injury Solicitor.

Presently this area of ‘treatment’ is not well regulated such that the sort of party you mentioned attending appears to be commonplace. This has worried the Independent Healthcare Advisory Service to the point where they have backed the launch of a register for providers of injectable cosmetic treatments. This is with the hope that patients such as you will then attend registered suppliers who will provide a consultation prior to giving treatment, the treatment will be given in a clean and clinical setting and only be given by doctors dentists and nurses who have been properly trained.

Despite this, the British Association of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons have criticised the scheme saying that it is only voluntary and is self regulatory. Instead they want a set of professionally led standards. This is likely in due course as there are new EU regulations currently under consideration.

You are not the first person to have suffered discomfort and problems following such ‘beauty treatment’ and the way forward would be to establish the name and address of the person who gave you the treatment and, if we can show all of your present problems stem from the poor administration of the treatment, we can then bring a claim on your behalf. If you need further help don’t hesitate to contact me.

Jeanette Whyman, Personal Injury Solicitor.

It is difficult to say why you were treated differently without knowing exactly the nature of cancer from which you were suffering and that of your friend. Treatment is given on a need basis so that if your condition was, for example, more aggressive or extensive, you may have needed different treatment.

Radiotherapy is sometimes seen as a ‘second class’ treatment and few patients are aware that it helps cure 40% of cancer patients. Cancer Research UK (CRUK) survey showed the public is more likely to rate other treatments such as surgery chemotherapy or targeted drugs as ‘cutting edge’ treatments. The charity does go onto say however that radiotherapy in the is lagging behind and that more patients would benefit from receiving the newer type of radiotherapy available elsewhere.

As to whether you have been treated correctly for your condition, it will be important to obtain your medical records and review the way you have been treated before we can say whether radiotherapy was appropriate for you. Please call me if you have any concerns.

Jeanette Whyman, Personal Injury Solicitor.

The study to which you refer was carried out by the University of Cambridge which analysed 539 neonatal deaths among more than a million births in Scotland between between 1985 and 2004. The overall risk of death was 4.2 per 10,000 live births during the working week, rising to 5.6 per 10,000 at all other times. The deaths happened among otherwise healthy babies who were starved of oxygen because of some major complication during labour or delivery.

The researchers had to speculate as to why the results indicated it was safer to give birth Monday to Friday between 9am-5pm. It was thought to be because there were more specialist staff on duty during weekdays and improved access to operating theatres, senior clinicians and higher levels of staffing.

You may be interested to know that in the last 30 years, there has been a decline in mortality rates both at birth and in the first year of life such that between 1980 and 2008, neonatal mortality in  and  fell by 58%.

Having said this, a study in the Lancet suggested that although maternal mortality in the UK remains low - 8.2 deaths per 100,000 live births - it is higher than some other European countries like Italy, Australia and Sweden.

As to your concerns, from a medical point of view, you must speak to your midwife if this is something which is troubling you. From a legal point of view, if you consider that the treatment you are receiving is putting you at risk then you must consult your legal advisor.

Jeanette Whyman , Personal Injury Solicitor.

In order to assess whether there was a failure to diagnose the broken bone, we need to ensure the fractured bone could and should have been seen on the first x-ray. This means getting copies of the x-rays and medical records. These can then be sent to a doctor who will give an opinion on this point. The doctor can say whether or not it was reasonable to miss the fracture. If it was not reasonable and the delay in diagnosis has resulted in further pain and suffering, a claim for compensation might be made on behalf of your daughter.

There is a 3 year time limit when bringing claims for injury. The Limitation Act 1980 states any claim must be issued (that is, papers lodged with court) within the 3 year anniversary of the date of the treatment causing the injury or date upon which the claimant realised he or she had been poorly treated. Attempting to bring a claim after this time can be very difficult.

There are exceptions to this rule however, one being injury to children. In the case of injury sustained by a child, they have until the age of majority plus 3 years to bring their claim, that is up until their 21^st birthday. As your daughter is only 14, she is still within the ‘limitation period’ and can therefore claim. You should therefore seek legal advice without delay.

Jeanette Whyman , Personal Injury Solicitor.

You may have a claim against both. I will explain your claim against each.

The Council has a duty to maintain the road in a reasonable condition given the circumstances – these include the type and amount of traffic which uses the road and whether the Council knew or should have known about the pothole. For example, if the road is busy and the pothole is large and deep, then you may well have a successful claim against the Council for your injury for which you will receive compensation. However, the Council may be able to defeat your claim if it can show it had a reasonable system for checking for and repairing potholes.

Compensation will be for your dislocated shoulder, and broken leg and ankle.

As to the ongoing problems with your ankle, the Council will be liable for this if the non-union of the fracture (which means the bone has not grown back together) is due to medical reasons.

Broke bones fail to grow back together for many reasons, which can include failure to treat or treating incorrectly. If for example your ankle should have been operated upon to pin it and this wasn’t done, then you will have a claim against the hospital for your ongoing problems. If however the reason is medical, for example poor bone growth, then the claim will be against the Council.

I would urge you to take legal advice as quickly as possible to explore making a claim.

Jeanette Whyman , Personal Injury Solicitor.

This is a very common misconception. Another is that the doctor or nurse knows best, even though the patient has a nagging feeling the treatment he or she received was not right. Many more do not want to cause a fuss or would rather put the bad experience behind them and get on with life.

The result of this is that the patient is left, sometimes in pain, but always feeling upset angry and disappointed and the doctor or nurse continues to practise in the same way.

It is absolutely vital for patients to raise concerns, not only so they can get the help they need but also to improve the health service for other patients.

Claims brought against hospitals and GPs produce 2 results: first, the patient gets the treatment they need; second, often there is a change in procedure to ensure the same thing does not happen again.

For example, I recently settled a case for someone who had a hip replacement. During the operation, the sciatic nerve was damaged which left him with foot drop and numbness in his leg. This meant whilst he could walk, and continue to work, he could not carry on playing football or all the other sports he enjoyed. He was not warned of the possibility of nerve damage prior to the operation. The medical expert instructed to review the medical records was critical of this and the way the operation was carried out.

The man was awarded over £40,000 compensation. This included the cost of private treatment for physiotherapy and specialist treatment from a consultant to ensure he had the best chance of regaining some feeling and movement in his leg.

This case clearly demonstrates it is of the utmost importance to raise any concerns you may have about the treatment you receive.

(The identity of the claimant in this matter has been changed for reasons of confidentiality)

Jeanette Whyman , Personal Injury Solicitor.

Swabs are commonly used after a birth where there is bleeding but where they are left in the body they become infected, which is what happened to you. Swabs should be counted and recorded before and after any medical or surgical procedure to ensure all are removed, but this doesn’t always happen.

The National Patient Safety Agency has just this week issued an alert to all Hospital Trusts urging them to take more care. The agency has received 99 reported cases over the 2 years and want to improve standards. The College of Midwives confirmed the “need for awareness and vigilance from midwives and other health professionals”.

In your case, I would suggest we obtain your medical records and investigate your position as it would certainly appear from your letter as though you will have a claim against the hospital.

Jeanette Whyman, Personal Injury Solicitor.

Compensation for the pain and suffering and ‘loss of amenity’ (which means the loss of ability to carry on your life as you did prior to the accident) is governed by a set of guidelines and case law.

The guidelines know as the Judicial Studies Board (JSB) Guidelines set brackets for damages or compensation dependent upon the severity of the suffering. Case law means precedents which have been set by previously decided cases.

With knee injuries, the JSB guidelines are divided into 2 categories: moderate and severe. ‘Moderate’ injuries include dislocation and torn cartilage where there is instability, wasting, weakness or other mild disabilities. This category extends to £17,000.

‘Severe’ injuries include disruption of the joint, ligamentous damage, lengthy treatment, considerable pain and loss of function with surgery required. This bracket extends from £17000 to £61,500.

As you continue to suffer pain, limp and have limited movement, your injuries fall around the lower end of the upper bracket and I would assess these around £20,000. The offer of £7,500 should not be accepted. Before accepting any offer of settlement, advice from a solicitor should always be sought.

Jeanette Whyman, Personal Injury Solicitor.

There have been a number of claims for MRSA against hospitals but until recently, few have succeeded. As the MRSA organism can be carried by many people on their skin and only becomes a problem when it enters an open wound it has been difficult to prove whether the patient contracted the infection whilst in hospital.

However, by taking a different approach, it is hoped more claims will succeed. By defining the MRSA infection as a ‘substance hazardous to health’, it will fall under the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health regulations. This means strict rules apply to control exposure to the substance – which includes risk assessments, proper protection, ongoing monitoring of the exposure and clear policies so all staff know how to deal with potential exposure. In the cases which have succeeded so far, the patient has been able to show the hospital wasn’t properly complying – the burden is on the hospital to show they have adequate measures in place to deal with MRSA rather than on the patient to show where they contracted the infection.

However no precedent has yet been set as the NHSLA (the defence body acting for the hospitals) have been settling the cases before they reach court.

In answer to your question therefore, I think you should see a legal advisor without delay as clearly the infection has meant a very slow recovery for you and such additional pain, suffering and loss should be properly compensated.

Jeanette Whyman, Personal Injury Solicitor.

Acupuncture is one of the "complementary" treatments which are now being offered on the NHS.  Not everyone however benefits from acupuncture and if your GP lead you to believe that your condition would be "cured", then this advice is very unusual.

In order for you to bring a claim against either your GP or the acupuncturist, you will need to show not only that the treatment you received fell below a reasonable and acceptable standard, but also, that you suffered harm or injury in some way as a result of the treatment you received.

From what you say in your letter, whilst the treatment you had did not alleviate or assist your condition, it did not deteriorate any further.  In other words, the treatment did not help you, but neither did it harm you.  This being the case, then you would not have a claim in law for damages against the acupuncturist.

If your GP gave you hope that you would be "cured", then clearly you will have suffered disappointment.  In order to claim against GP, you would have to show your GP clearly advised you that you would be cured and that you are now suffering more than just disappointment.  You would have to show that you have suffered definite injury such as a psychological reaction.  Here again, from the tone of your letter, this is not the case and therefore you would not have an action against your GP.

As "complementary" treatments are relatively new, there are few cases in this field of law.  However, if you consider you have been poorly treated by any complementary therapist, and this has resulted in injury or damage, then you must seek legal advice without delay.  As with any other claim for poor treatment resulting in injury or damage, you have three years in which to bring a claim.

Jeanette Whyman, Personal Injury Solicitor.

Yes, the Hospital must comply with Health and Safety Regulations and ensure their premises are safe for both the general public and their employees. Any building to which  people have access, such as a hospital, must have procedures in force to identify, minimise and deal with potentially dangerous situations.

Hazards can arise in all sorts of ways. Doors can be particularly hazardous as they move, sometimes unexpectedly. The doors at the entrance to the hospital are known as Power Operated Pedestrian doors –  the door is operated automatically with the approach of a person. This type of door is used in high activity areas used by the general public such as an entrance to a shop or, as in this case, a hospital.

Such doors may present risk of injury or entrapment. If the risk of injury is significant, certain recommendations and precautions must be considered.

These can include: sensors -  to stop or reverse the door before it collides with anyone; barriers - to prevent anyone being in the arc of a swing door; signs -  to provide appropriate warnings; suitable speed – of travel of the door. The hospital should also ensure the door is maintained and checked regularly.

If, despite all these safeguards, an accident occurs, it must be reported.  Good practise would be for the hospital to look again at its health and safety procedures to see where it failed and how the system might be improved. If the accident results in injury, legal advice should be taken as to the possibility of a claim.

Jeanette Whyman, Personal Injury Solicitor.

An insurance industry funded body called the Motor Insurers Bureau exists to compensate the innocent victims of drivers who were either uninsured or who cannot be traced.  Basically the MIB, instead of an insurance company, will deal with your claim and you will be able to recover compensation.  The Motor Insurers Bureau scheme is quite complicated, with various important time limits which must be met, so please call us and we will help with your claim.

Jeanette Whyman, Personal Injury Solicitor.

It works in a similar way although there are differences.  The main point is the standard of care a rider has to meet and whilst all riders have to exercise the degree of care to be expected of a reasonably competent rider, that standard can vary according to where the bike is being used.  For example, a rider would probably fall below the required standard if they attempted to overtake on a sharp bend on the road but the same manoeuvre would probably be fine on the track.  Although the standard of care can vary, as your rival deliberately knocked you off your bike, that riding was well below the necessary standard and you may well have a good claim.

Jeanette Whyman, Personal Injury Solicitor.

To be legal for road use a visor must comply with British Standard 4110:1999.  The Standard means that the visor has been checked for light transmission, amongst other things, and that the light transmission is at least 50%.  If the light transmission is below that then you can’t use the visor on the road.  You’re probably right in saying that your sunglasses are darker than your visor – an average pair of sunglasses has a light transmission level of about 24% but can be worn for road use even though they let through less than half the amount of light!

Jeanette Whyman, Personal Injury Solicitor.