Claim Settled for Child’s Surgery Injuries

child in hospital

Contact

Elline Demetriou

Table of Contents

Osbornes secures settlement for child’s surgery-related injuries

Osbornes Law successfully represented a minor, X, in a claim against two hospitals for injuries eventually sustained secondary to surgery X needed shortly after being born.

The background

X was born with complex health issues affecting her internal organs. X had a pacemaker inserted soon after birth and several months later X underwent an operation of her gut.

At various points during a 2-year period imaging showed that X’s pacemaker had moved but no action was taken.

At the end of that period, X began to complain of abdominal pain and was treated for urinary tract infections, which did not relieve X’s symptoms. X also suffered from constipation.

X was seen by a paediatric surgeon but no concerns were noted. X continued to experience pain and constipation and was seen by her GP twice in a month; X was also taken to A&E by her parents.

X had a pacemaker review whereby the pacemaker was reported to have moved position but no action was taken. X’s parents took X back to the GP three times in three months and once to A&E. At one of the appointments, X’s GP requested X be reviewed by surgeons but this did not eventuate so X’s parents took X to see a private pediatrician. They were advised to take X to A&E, which they did, but they were told X had constipation and X was discharged. X’s parents continued to seek medical assistance as they could see X was not well. They attended A&E again but after being dismissed, they sought advice from a private clinic. The private clinician realised X was unwell and wrote a referral letter to gastroenterology for X to be investigated.

This led to X being admitted for tests before being discharged and investigated further over the next few weeks;. X was found to have an infection but the cause had not been determined. X’s cardiologist advised her parents to take her to hospital and to not leave without X being admitted. X was admitted to hospital.

Critical discovery and emergency surgery

A few days following X’s hospital admission, it suddenly became apparent that the migrating pacemaker had caused severe damage to X’s bowels. X was transferred immediately to another hospital. An emergency laparotomy was performed to remove the pacemaker, which had perforated into X’s bowel and migrated.

X required a stoma as a section of the bowel was ischaemic. X was discharged to ICU but required further operations within days.

X was discharged for further treatment for the gut. The stoma that had been created was reversed. However, X unfortunately developed post-operative sepsis and required admission in ICU. X was transferred back to the other hospital and discharged home weeks later.

X’s recovery was monitored thereafter and a decision was made to reinsert a pacemaker.

The claim

The Claimant alleged that but for the Defendants’ negligence, X would have avoided at least 10 months of pain and suffering caused by the compression of the gut from the pacemaker lying in an incorrect position. X would also have avoided the trauma and distress caused by damage to the gut and would not have needed an emergency laparotomy and stoma formation, nor the various multiple surgical procedures that followed as a result of the negligence, which were alleged to have adversely influenced X’s overall development and also left X with unnecessary scars.

Thankfully, X suffered no long-term cardiac injury as a result of the negligence although due to the loss of some of X’s bowel X will likely require a surgery in future.

Claim settled

The Trust admitted liability pre-action and the claim successfully concluded out of Court. The Court approved the settlement for the injuries X suffered, care received from X’s parents as well as their expenses, and for X’s future treatment.

How can we help?

If you or a loved one suffered due to a medical procedure, our Medical Negligence solicitors are here to support you.

Contact Osbornes Law by:

  • Filling in our online enquiry form; or
  • Calling us on 020 7485 8811

Share this article

Contact us today

Email us Send us an email and we’ll get back to you






    • Jan Atkinson heads up the team and is a respected senior lawyer.

      Legal 500 2025

    • Katie De Swarte – she is very client-focused and attuned to their needs without being fearful of setting out where she perceives there may be weaknesses in their position.

      Legal 500 2024

    • "Kesha Pabari was the most kind, considerate and supportive lawyer, equally astute with due process and I would wholeheartedly recommend her."

      Divorce and Finances, client review

    • “William Ford is impressive and devoted to the sector.”

      Chambers Uk

    • "Osbornes team is noted for cross-practice expertise in areas such as housing and community care, which it brings to bear in disrepair, possession and homelessness cases involving vulnerable adults, individuals with language difficulties, the elderly and those with no recourse to public funds."

      The Legal 500

    Related InsightsVIEW ALL

    VIEW ALL