Neurosurgery Claims

Neurology and Neurosurgery compensation claims relate to the diagnosis and treatment of disorders of the nervous system, most commonly involving the spinal cord and the brain. Clinical negligence can arise through surgical error or improper diagnosis.

Surgeons need to be extremely skilled as the surgery is often intricate, but mistakes do sometimes happen.

Cases often involve patients with Cauda Equina Syndrome not being diagnosed or treated properly. This syndrome is caused by pressure to the Cauda Equina, sometimes known as the “horse’s tail”, which controls motor functions such as movement and sensation in the legs, as well as bladder, bowel and sexual function. Injury to any of these functions can, of course, have severe consequences.

In Cauda Equina cases, prompt diagnosis and surgery, generally within a period of 48 hours, is vital in halting the damage that has occurred and preventing further deterioration.

Whatever your circumstances, MPH can investigate whether your injury has resulted from a lack of surgical care and will help guide you through the complicated claims process.

Case Report

The Claimant had developed Cauda Equina Syndrome following surgical decompression of the spine.

He was left with no sexual function, was doubly incontinent and had reduced mobility.

Breach of Duty was vehemently denied by the Defendants, notwithstanding that the medical records implied (rather than clearly stated), that the high speed burr being used by the Surgeon, had come into contact with the Cauda Equina nerve roots during the procedure.

The Defendants maintained that there had been no negligence, and that the development of Cauda Equina Syndrome was a “recognised risk” of the surgery.

The Claimant’s main allegation was that the surgical technique was poor in allowing the high-speed burr to come into contact with the Cauda Equina nerve roots. Expert evidence was commissioned from a Consultant Neurosurgeon which supported this allegation. Liability was still denied by the Defendants and no doubt they had obtained their own supportive evidence in relation to their Defence.

The Defendants argued that such was the extent of Mr. B’s pre-surgical mobility difficulties, that there was no clear deterioration, post-surgically. In other words, the Defendants stated that regardless of whether they had injured the Claimant, he would have been left disabled in any event, due to his pre-existing condition.

Secondly, sadly, Mr. B suffered from Parkinson’s Disease, (entirely unrelated to the medical issues with which the case was concerned)

MPH Solicitors negotiated a settlement of the case directly with the Defendants’ Solicitors in the sum of £600,000.00, notwithstanding their denial of liability.