Mrs A as Administratrix of the Estate of Ms B (deceased) –v- Ms B’s General Practitioner and the Local Health Trust
Campbell Fitzpatrick Solicitors acted on behalf of the Adminstratrix of the Estate of Ms B. Ms B was born on 1st June 1964 and died in January 2005. Ms B had suffered from Down’s syndrome during the course of her lifetime. By reason of the high standard of care provided by her family members Ms B enjoyed a very good quality of life. She was much loved and appreciated by her family circle.
The General Practitioner was familiar with Ms B’s medical condition. Both the General Practitioner and a locally based Consultant Dermatologist, employed by the Trust, were responsible at various times for providing medical care and treatment to Ms B.
Ms B had suffered from psoriasis during the course of her lifetime. By the 20th December 2004 her psoriasis was severe. The General Practitioner and the Consultant Dermatologist visited the patient at her home on 24th December 2004. The diagnosis made was one of erythrodermic psoriasis. It was the Plaintiff’s case that both the General Practitioner and the Consultant ought to have known that this condition constituted a dermatological emergency and that he ought to have advised Ms B’s family accordingly. In particular it was submitted on behalf of the Plaintiff that the family ought to have been advised that the patient required in-patient hospital care. Instead the General Practitioner and the Consultant permitted Ms B’s continued treatment in the home setting whilst directing that fluids be encouraged and by prescribing Paracetamol for pain control. The Consultant Dermatologist made a follow-up visit on 27th December 2004 but failed to arrange for Ms B to be admitted to hospital.
The General Practitioner then carried out a number of home visits in late December and throughout January in order to treat Ms B. It was the Plaintiff’s case that he ought to have arranged to have Ms B admitted into hospital on an emergency basis where appropriate treatment could have been delivered. It was the Plaintiff’s case that such treatment would have included the effective observation and monitoring of her electrolyte balance, fluid status, renal function, liver function and temperature. Furthermore swab cultures and blood cultures could have been taken and monitored and her chest could have been effectively monitored by x-ray.
Ms B was deprived of these facilities and her condition deteriorated during the month of January. It was the Plaintiff’s case that such was her condition by mid January 2005 that she should have been admitted to the local hospital for in-patient care. As it was her admission did not occur until 28th January 2005. By that time Ms B had become weaker. Her appetite and her consumption of liquid was depressed. She was crampy with abdominal pain and she had blistered bed sores. She developed multi-organ failure as a result of erythrodermic psoriasis and shortly thereafter developed bronchial pneumonia. She died on 31st January 2005. May she rest in peace.
Patrick Mullarkey of this firm was approached by the Estate of Ms B in order to investigate the care which had been provided to her and to initiate proceedings in respect of negligence and breach of statutory contract. Proceedings were issued in January 2007 and served in December of that year. The action was set down for hearing in April of 2010 and the case came on for hearing in early 2011. Before the case came to trial we exchanged the liability and quantum medical evidence with the representatives of the Defendant. This led to settlement negotiations between the parties which ultimately resolved the case. Damages were paid to the Plaintiff in respect of the personal injuries sustained by Ms B prior to her death. No damages were payable in relation to the death itself as this was not a death which qualified for compensation in this matter pursuant to the Fatal Accidents (NI) Order 1977. Bereavement awards, presently in the sum of £11,800, are only payable in two limited circumstances. Neither of those circumstances applied in this case. The damages which were paid reflected the value of the personal injury sustained by Ms B prior to her death. Damages were paid by the Defendants without admission of liability.