The Plaintiff sustained an injury to his left little finger whilst playing football in March 2006. He attended at his local A&E department, where a fracture of the proximal phalanx was diagnosed and a manipulation of the finger performed under local anaesthetic. The Plaintiff was discharged with his finger in a splint.
Following this attendance, the Plaintiff reattended at the same A&E department for review on a further three occasions. An x-ray was taken each time, and the Plaintiff was discharged at the time of his final attendance.
Three weeks after his discharge, the Plaintiff attended with his GP, reporting pain and deformity at the site of the fracture. He was immediately directed to return to hospital, where he was advised that the fracture had failed to heal and that surgery would be required. Unfortunately, the second procedure was unsuccessful, and the Plaintiff was left with reduced movement of the finger, and persisting pain and stiffness. He was eventually obliged to undergo an additional surgery to remove adhesions which had developed between the skin and the tendon. This procedure was performed one year after the initial injury, and the Plaintiff remained under review for a further period of six months after that. He has been left with a reduced range of motion and a visible deformity.
The Plaintiff instructed Campbell Fitzpatrick Solicitors to investigate this matter on his behalf. We obtained a number of reports from both a consultant A&E expert and a consultant hand and orthopaedic surgeon. These reports indicated that the treatment provided to the Plaintiff at the time of his initial attendance at the A&E department and thereafter was inappropriate. There had been a clear failure to interpret the x-rays taken at the time of those attendances correctly. Had this been done, the need for a further two procedures would have been avoided and the Plaintiff would have been left with an essentially normal finger.
On the basis of these reports, the case was listed for hearing in October 2011. Prior to the hearing date, the Defendants representatives indicated that they were prepared to negotiate in respect of the case. A joint consultation took place in September 2011 and the matter was resolved by way of negotiation, the terms of the settlement being confidential between the parties. The Plaintiff was awarded damages and was satisfied with this very good result.