Compensation for private hip surgery problems.

The Claimant approached us for advice and assistance after undergoing hip replacement surgery as a private patient. Within a few months of the surgery he was suffering significant pain on mobilising. The Claimant was subsequently referred onto an alternative consultant orthopaedic surgeon  for a review. The Claimant was then advised that he had a degree of leg shortening  on the side that had been subject to surgery. Radiological evidence suggested that an undersized right stem had been fitted.

The Claimant sought further opinions  from alternative specialists. They confirmed the opinion that the stem used was too small for the femur. X-rays revealed a loosening of the un-cemented stem which had subsided within the femur.  Revision surgery was performed, the stem was removed and replaced with a larger one.

The Defendant was initially notified of the potential claim within 18 months of the initial surgery. Medical evidence was obtained. The subsequent report revealed that the femoral component was implanted in a substandard fashion by the Defendant and the stem was undersized for the joint. The under sizing of the stem meant that primary stability was never achieved and this led to the Claimant’s thigh pain and the need for revision surgery. Proposals were put forward in behalf of the Claimant with a view to bringing the matter to an early conclusion.  However no satisfactory response was received from the Defendant so Court proceedings were issued. A Defence was subsequently filed which denied liability. The matter was eventually settled by negotiation when the Defendants put forward proposals that were acceptable to the Claimant.

The Claimant recovered the sum of £36,500.00 in full and final settlement of this claim.

Speaking of the settlement a member of the CNCI Team said “there were complex medical issues for consideration in this case. We were able to obtain a report from an independent surgeon who was able to give a clear opinion about the appropriate sequence of events and the treatment that the Claimant should have received. Although the Defendants denied liability it is clear that the weight of the evidence here supported the Claimant. The damages recovered will enable him to focus on the future after what was a difficult and painful period for him”.