Patrick Mullarkey of this office was instructed by the widow of a patient of the Defendants. On the 14th December 1999 the patient attended at the casualty department of the local hospital. The patient presented complaining of nausea and dizziness. He was admitted for investigation. On the 16th December 1999 during the course of those investigations, the patient advised the medical personnel responsible for caring for him that he had a history of dysphagia (difficulty swallowing) for solids of about 2 months and a 5 month history of reflux. The plan in the patient’s medical notes and records stated that it was intended that the patient would undergo an oesophogastro duodenoscopy (OGD). An OGD is a test that allows a Doctor to look inside a patient’s oesophagus (food pipe), stomach and duodendom using an endoscope. An endoscope is a tube containing a small camera and a light. The OGD is carried out under general anaesthetic.
The patient was discharged from hospital on or about the 17th December 1999. The symptoms of dysphagia were not followed up or investigated by medical practitioners caring for him at the hospital. On or about the 27th March 2000 the patient attended at his outpatient clinic at the hospital. At that time the patient repeated his history of suffering from dysphagia and the medical personnel recorded that he would be investigated at the next follow up visit in 2 months time. On the 30th May 2000 the patient presented at his GP complaining of food sticking for several months. The GP arranged for investigations to be carried out and a diagnosis of oesophageal cancer was made following an endoscopic examination on the 28th June 2000. On the 14th July 2000 the deceased underwent an operation to remove the cancer which following further study was found to be probably gastric rather than oesophageal in origin. Unfortunately notwithstanding the treatment provided to the patient, he died on the 23rd June 2003.
Instructions were received to act on behalf of the estate in this matter. Legal Aid was applied for and granted. Discovery was obtained of the medical notes and records and independent expert evidence was obtained from an Oncologist (cancer expert), a Consultant Physician and a Consultant Surgeon. It was alleged, on behalf of the Plaintiff, that there was a clear opportunity to diagnose the patient’s cancer some 5 to 6 months earlier than it eventually was. The independent Oncologist was also of the opinion that this represented a breach in the medical personnel’s duty of care. It was the evidence from the independent Oncologist that the delay of 5 to 6 months in diagnosing and treating the caner from which the patient ultimately died, brought forward the date of his death by a period of up to 3 months. Furthermore the delay in diagnosing and treating the deceased in respect of the cancer from which he was suffering led to the development of a depressive illness.
Proceedings were issued on behalf of the patient in December 2002. As a consequence of the patient’s death, proceedings were amended on the 23rd February 2004. The matter was set down for hearing on the 16th March 2005 and was listed for trial on the 6th September 2006. On the 21st August 2006 the Defendant accepted liability for the delay of between 5 and 6 months in diagnosing the condition of oesophageal cancer in the deceased. The Defendant also accepted that the delay in diagnosis probably resulted in the deceased’s death 3 months earlier than would otherwise have been the case. The parties entered into negotiations. The case ultimately settled, with the Plaintiff’s authority, for payment of £15,000 plus costs. The deceased’s widow received a payment of £15,000 in to her hands.