During surgery the wall of her renal pelvis was perforated. However, this wasn't the negligent action. The doctors treating her failed to ensure that the drain inserted to deal with the perforation was correctly positioned to drain away the urine from the kidney and out of the body. This error could have been easily corrected if a check X-ray had been performed following the drain insertion.

The leaking urine caused a kidney infection and she had to undergo further surgery to remove the remnants of the drain, leaving her with an 8 inch surgical scar, altered skin sensation around the scar, an overactive bladder, and other problems.

The defendants accepted that there was a breach of duty in relation to the sub-standard care provided in the placing of the drain. Further to the above, Mrs A was left with a residual stone in her right kidney, which had not been cleared by the original surgery. Attempts made to clear the stone did not succeed and it was alleged that a particular fragment of stone caused permanent damage to the kidney. It was also asserted that the follow up treatment was insufficient and the reduction of her kidney function ultimately led to the removal of her kidney. No admissions were made in respect of the second alleged negligence and it was argued that due to the reduced function of the kidney, prior to the procedures, the kidney may have had to be removed in any event.

The case was settled out of court for £150,000.

The solicitor recovered £150,000 for Mr C in respect of his injury and the lost promotion opportunity.

In different accident, Mr D was overtaking a line of stationery traffic when a vehicle emerged from the line of traffic, colliding with Mr D and his motorbike. Mr D sustained severe multiple fractures to his left leg and was hospitalised for four weeks. As a result of these injuries Mr D wasn't able to continue working and was therefore forced into early retirement.

The at fault insurers initially disputed liability, however the solicitor secured 100% liability in favour of Mr D and recovered £238,000 in damages.

In another separate incident, Miss E was a passenger in a car when it collided with the rear of another vehicle. Miss E sustained a severe whiplash injury to her neck and back, with the injuries lasting for almost 3 years. Miss E was also unable to work for 4 months, which resulted in a loss of earnings and a bonus.

The solicitor secured the sum of £12,965 in damages for loss of earnings and personal injury.

Mrs C was just 23 years old at the time and underwent a caesarean section for the birth of her first child. All was well initially and mother and baby were discharged home. However, on day five post caesarean section, Mrs C was readmitted to the defendant hospital with abdominal pain, an offensive vaginal discharge and shortness of breath. Following admission, there were ongoing delays in providing a proper obstetric assessment and review, leading to a failure to provide timely intravenous antibiotic therapy and surgical treatment. As a result, Mrs C's condition deteriorated, she developed severe sepsis and the decision was made to perform a hysterectomy. Had adequate steps been taken to empty the uterus, Mrs C would not have contracted the infection, would not have required the hysterectomy and there would have been no impairment to her future fertility.

There was no improvement over the next five weeks. He continued to suffer substantial pain and attended a local Walk-in Centre. Again, he was reassured that he had only suffered a soft tissue injury. He was not x-rayed and was advised to mobilise the ankle as much as possible.

Due to ongoing symptoms, our client was eventually referred by his GP for an x-ray some three months later. He was found to have sustained a fracture to the distal third of the fibula with subluxation (partial dislocation) of the ankle joint. He underwent surgery two months later and subsequently made a good recovery.

Expert opinion was obtained from a consultant orthopaedic surgeon who advised that had the fracture been diagnosed in a timely fashion he would still have had to undergo surgery, but the surgery would not have been as extensive as it was in the end. As a result of the delay in the surgery and the mobilising of a fractured ankle, our expert believed that our client would very likely develop osteoarthritis in the ankle joint and at some time in the future, he would require an ankle fusion.

The NHS Trust initially admitted liability but denied causation. After protracted negotiations, however, the defendant conceded causation and the claim was settled for the sum of £20,000.

He had not been supplied with adequate masks to prevent inhalation of harmful substances and the workshop in which he worked was inadequately ventilated. He had also not warned been warned by his employers about the dangers of exposure to harmful substances.

The man initially fell over and was admitted to the defendant hospital. No visual assessment of his pressure areas was undertaken on admission, but later that day he was placed onto a pressure-relieving mattress and his pressure areas were checked.

The following day he was transferred to a ward. The man's son informed the staff that he had been admitted to the same hospital five years ago and was at high risk of developing pressure ulcers. However, that information was not documented or relayed to the nursing staff. The gentleman developed grade 4 pressure ulcers on his heels and sacrum.

The hospital admitted that they had (a) failed to carry out appropriate skin inspections and (b) failed to implement a satisfactory care plan after observing the redness of his heels and sacrum. It was admitted that the sores developed as a result of these failures and that the ulcers affected the gentleman's independence. He had previously been able to drive and actively participated in local groups. However, following the negligence, he was confined to his home and for six months he was unable to carry out his shopping or cooking. He also required assistance with his personal care for three months.

However, his post-operative care was poor and there was a failure to diagnose and treat pressure ulcers. By the time a tissue viability nurse examined him, a month after he had been admitted to hospital, his pressure ulcers were Grade 4, full thickness wounds exposing the muscle and bone.

Before his fall, he had been very independent, but the lack of care and the development of pressure ulcers reduced him to a very weak and frail individual for a number of months. After he was discharged from hospital, he needed daily visits by district nurses to dress the significant wounds he had sustained.

Liability was admitted by the NHS Trust and an out of court settlement was reached for £30,000.