Mrs AV had a long medical history of osteoporosis which had caused spinal fractures. She was deemed to be at very high risk of further fractures. In 2016, her treatment was changed to 6 monthly injections of Denosumab for a period of 3 years, when she would be reviewed again by the consultant rheumatologist.
The Denosumab injections were correctly administered at her GP surgery every 6 months.
In May 2019, her GP referred her back to the consultant rheumatologist for her planned 3-year review. Her next injection was due on 1 November 2019 but due to a negligent delay in Mrs AV being reviewed by her consultant, she did not receive the injection until 24 March 2020.
By that stage Mrs AV had suffered further spinal fractures and was in excruciating pain requiring strong pain relief. She was 81 years of age at the time.
Prior to the negligence, Mrs AV was living independently and led a very active life. She walked her dogs for 2 hours per day, she went on coach trips with friends visiting museums and galleries and she would often walk with a walking group for 8 miles. Following the negligence, she required considerable care and assistance from her family; she developed a very stooped posture and suffers ongoing pain, restricted mobility, reduced balance and low moods.
Sue Man was instructed to investigate a claim with regards to the negligent delay in Mrs AV receiving her injection. An expert rheumatologist was instructed to advise on whether the delay in administering the Denosumab was negligent, and whether the delay caused the further spinal fractures, or whether these would have occurred anyway.
The defendant NHS Trust admitted there was a negligent delay in administering Denosumab, which should have occurred in November 2019. However, they denied causing the further fractures and denied that Mrs AV developed new fractures during the period of delay.
The Trust’s denials were challenged, and they eventually admitted Mrs AV did suffer additional fractures which were caused by their negligence.
Despite the Trust finally admitting the claim, they went on to dispute the level of compensation that Mrs AV should recover. In their view, Mrs AV was elderly and would have needed care, further medical treatment, adaptations to her home, equipment etc. even if she had not received negligent treatment.
After a lengthy period of negotiation in which we continued to challenge the defendant’s position, the claim settled at £265,000, two months before Mrs AV’s 87th birthday.