February 19, 2024
Sodium Valproate (Epilim) Inquiry
In November 2020, the Minister for Health, Mr Stephen Donnelly, announced that an inquiry would take place into the historical licensing and use of the epilepsy drug Sodium Valproate (also...
|As part of the Cervical Check programme, our client underwent a smear test under the care of her GP in order to undergo cervical screening.
The smear test was revealed atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance. Accordingly, our client was advised to undergo repeat smear testing in twelve months. Owing to her pregnancy she was unable to undergo repeat testing until a year later.
In accordance with the Cervical Check programme, our client underwent a further smear test under the care of her General Practitioner. The smear test was reported as being negative for intraepithelial lesion or malignancy. Notwithstanding the test result, our client was advised to undergo further smear testing in twelve months.
She underwent a repeat smear test a year later. The smear test was reported as revealing atypical glandular cells of endocervical origin. In light of the results of the smear test, our client was referred to the Colposcopy Clinic where she underwent a LLETZ procedure which revealed a cervical adenocarcinoma on the background of high grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia, which was staged at Stage 1B. Subsequent radiological imaging did reveal evidence of metastatic or local spread and she underwent a laparoscopic radical hysterectomy.
Lavelle Partners obtained an expert opinion from a Consultant Gynaecological Pathologist in relation to the woman’s previous cervical smears. The expert found that there was a breach of duty of care as both prior samples were reported incorrectly. Both cervical smears contained sufficient abnormal glandular cells that ought to have been detected by a cytoscreener exercising good practice and care whilst screening.
Lavelle Partners then obtained an expert opinion from a Gynaecological Oncologist. In the expert’s opinion, if the initial slide had been correctly reported, out client would have been offered a cervical LLETZ procedure and on the balance of probabilities, would have shown either pre-invasive CGIN or a very small cervical adenocarcinoma at worst. In our expert’s opinion, had the woman’s smears been properly read, she could have been treated by cervical LLETZ alone.
The case was fully defended and successfully mediated for a substantial sum.
Contact our office
Make an enquiry