Scoliosis Surgical Negligence Solicitors

To pursue a successful claim for Scoliosis, it must be proven that the standard of care that you received fell below what is reasonably expected, and that this negligence directly caused or worsened your outcome. 

Common examples of negligence in Scoliosis cases include:

• Delayed diagnosis and delayed surgery

• Failure to monitor or provide post-operative care

• Failure to use CE marked (Conformite Europeene) medical devices

• Failure to adequately correct the spinal curvature

• Failure to adequately monitor blood pressure and/or blood loss during the operation which can also lead to damage to the spinal cord 

• Misplaced pedicle screws, which can cause post-operative pain

• Surgical errors

• Unnecessary surgery

To bring a claim for Scoliosis Surgical Negligence, it will be necessary to provide evidence that:

• The surgeon, anaesthetist, or other healthcare professional involved in your care performed their duty in a way that was below a satisfactory standard (i.e. that another surgeon or healthcare professional would not have made the same error), and;

• This negligence caused you damage or injury.

To prove your case, we will compile evidence, including medical or care records, and seek expert medical opinion.

Compensation for negligent Scoliosis treatment, can cover the physical, emotional and financial harm caused by the negligence as well as any future care needs.

• Severity of Injury: The more serious the injury or complication caused by negligence, the higher the compensation. For example, spinal injuries, paralysis, or long-term pain can result in significantly larger compensation settlements compared to cases of mid discomfort.

• Impact on Quality of Life: If the negligence has restricted your mobility, affected your ability to work, or led to a loss of independence, the compensation will reflect the lasting impact on your daily life.

• Ongoing Medical Treatment: The costs of additional medical treatment, surgeries or rehabilitation required due to the negligence will be considered. This may include physiotherapy, specialist care or even alternative treatments.

• Loss of Earnings: If your injury has affected your ability to work, either temporarily or permanently, compensation will account for loss income and future earnings potential.

• Care and Support Needs: In cases where ongoing care is required, compensation will cover the costs of professional carers or adaptations to your home to accommodate your needs.

We understand that compensation is essential not just for your recovery, but also for your financial security.  We will work diligently to ensure that you receive a settlement that fully reflects your suffering, future care needs and any financial losses. 

By speaking with Avril Scally, Partner and Head of our Medical Negligence & Personal Injury Team, you can receive tailored advice on what to expect in terms of compensation, based on the details of your Scoliosis claim.

You generally have two years to make a Medical Negligence claim from the date of the negligent treatment or from when you became aware that negligence occurred. This is known as the “date of knowledge.” There are exceptions, such as in cases involving children, where the three-year limit begins from their 18th birthday. For those who lack the mental capacity to make a claim independently, no time limit will apply.

It is vital to act within the given time frame to ensure that your compensation claim can be pursued. If you believe you have suffered due to Scoliosis Surgery Negligence, you should seek legal advice as soon as possible.

Case Overview:

Our client was diagnosed with ectopic adrenocorticotrophic hormone (ACTH) his adrenal glands were producing excessive level of cortisol.

He was initially treated with medication but he was advised that such treatment was temporary and he would ultimately require removal of both adrenal glands.

Despite the option of bilateral adrenalectomy being available, a decision was made to proceed initially by way of a left adrenalectomy and thereafter, following a period of recuperation, to undertake a right adrenalectomy.

He was admitted to hospital to undergo a left laparoscopic adrenalectomy.  At surgery, the operation note indicates that a “massively enlarged” adrenal gland was identified, which was described as expanding in front of the renal vessels and below the pelvis of the kidney.  In the course of dissecting the mass off the renal vessels, severe bleeding was encountered which necessitated converting the surgery to an open procedure.  Ultimately however, the operation note confirms “adrenalectomy completed”.

Despite the content of the operation note, the subsequent histology report revealed that the left adrenal gland had not been removed.  CT examination confirmed that the left adrenal gland remained in situ; the surgery that had in fact been undertaken was a partial pancreatectomy up to the pancreatic neck.

In the aftermath of his surgery, he required prolonged admission to the intensive care unit and his condition was complicated by pancreatic leak and sepsis.  He underwent a bilateral adrenalectomy and a splenectomy, the latter procedure being required in order to repair the injury to the pancreas created at his initial surgery.

This case was mediated a week in advance of the trial and ultimately settled for a substantial sum.

Case Overview:

The Plaintiff in this matter received a significant settlement following a surgical error.

The Plaintiff underwent a laparoscopic cholecystectomy which was complicated by bleeding and had to be converted to an open procedure. At this point, the surgeons discovered she also had a bile leak.

Subsequent to her discharge, our client experienced persistent upper abdominal and back pain with intermittent nausea.  Owing to a deterioration in her condition, our client attended the Emergency Department where she was admitted to undergo computerized tomography ("CT") examination of her abdomen.

The CT examination revealed evidence of a collection of a mixture of bile and blood in the gallbladder fossa.  Our client required treatment with intravenous antibiotics for a five-day period and thereafter with oral antibiotics before discharge from the Hospital.

The Plaintiff instructed Lavelle Partners to investigate the circumstances of her case.

In advance of the trial date, the case was successfully settled without an admission of liability on the part of the hospital.

Case Overview:

Our client presented to the emergency department at a hospital complaining of a progressively worsening headache which had been ongoing for in excess of a week.

CT brain imaging was performed which was reported as normal. He was then discharged from the emergency department.

He represented again to the emergency department with persistent symptoms of headaches and left leg weakness.  Upon clinical examination, left lower limb weakness, mild ataxia with difficulty performing left heel to shin test, and a left visual defect were noted. He was admitted to hospital for further investigation where he underwent repeat CT brain and CT angiogram of the neck vessels, both of which were unremarkable.

He underwent a lumbar puncture which was recorded in his clinical notes as traumatic, with blood visible in the sample obtained.  The procedure was not adequately documented and, in particular, the position of our client when the lumber puncture was being performed, the type and size of the needle used, the spinal segment level at which the cerebrospinal fluid (“CSF”) tap was attempted, and the number of insertions or passes made in order to obtain CSF were not recorded.

In the aftermath of the lumbar puncture, he complained of left leg weakness with an inability to perform heel-toe testing. His condition deteriorated further. In view of his presentation, MRI imaging of the spine was undertaken, to investigate the neurological deficits of which he complained. Subsequent review of the MRI confirmed evidence of substantial spinal haemorrhage with intramedullary signal abnormality.

Unfortunately, owing to the manner in which a lumbar puncture procedure was performed he suffered significant neurological injury with ongoing lower limb paresis and bladder and bowel dysfunction.

This case was fully defended and was mediated a week in advance of the trial date.  This case ultimately settled for a significant sum.

Lavelle Partners Secures Substantial Settlement for Plaintiff with Cerebral Palsy due to Hospital Negligence