February 01, 2012
LANDMARK CASE HELPS ASBESTOSIS VICTIMS
JOHN ROBERTS, PARTNER
Large numbers of victims exposed to asbestos in the course of their work, and who are now suffering from Asbestosis, may be able to claim compensation following a recent landmark case in the High Court.
Asbestosis is a lung condition caused by exposure to significant amounts of asbestos dust.
In the recent case of Sabin –v- British Railway Board (Residuary) Limited, Delia Sabin was awarded £100,000.00 after the death of her husband, Leslie, in 2006, which was caused by Asbestosis.
Leslie Sabin had worked as a lorry driver in the 1950s delivering asbestos contained in hessian sacks from Wigan rail depot to Turner and Newalls premises in Hindley Green. Leslie was required to load and unload the sacks of asbestos and in the course of such work was exposed to asbestos dust.
Until the case brought by Delia Sabin, Employers’ Insurers had relied on research carried out at Llandough Hospital, Cardiff, which dictated that 20 million fibres of asbestos had to be found in lung tissue to conclude that asbestos dust had caused Asbestosis. This figure had been set following research in industries where a high level of exposure to asbestos had taken place. However, in Delia Sabin’s case Dr. Victor Roggli an American expert from Duke University Medical Centre, North Carolina gave evidence to the Court that much lower levels of asbestos in the lungs are sufficient to make the connection between exposure to asbestos and asbestosis. Judge Justice Swift agreed with Dr. Roggli’s evidence and accepted that asbestos fibres could have cleared from Leslie’s body over the years between his exposure in the 1950s and his death in 2006. The Judge indicated that the test employed by Llandough Hospital, Cardiff was “probably significantly too high”.
The effect of Delia Sabin’s case is that those seeking compensation for Asbestosis and lung cancer, where the amount of asbestos fibres in the lungs is a factor, will not now have to show such high levels of asbestos fibres in the lungs as was previously the case.
Asbestosis is just one of a number of different conditions caused by exposure to Asbestos, with Mesothelioma, lung cancer and pleural thickening also all being caused by this naturally occurring mineral.
John Roberts, Partner | Personal Injury
j.roberts@waldrons.co.uk
Wychbury Court
Two Woods Lane
Merry Hill DY5 1TA
Tel: 01384 811811
CLEAVAGE SPARING MASTECTOMIES BY MR PATERSON, BREAST SURGEON FOLLOWED BY RECONSTRUCTIONS BY MISS KAT, PLASTIC SURGEON
NICOLA LEWIS, ASSOCIATE
Nicola Lewis, Head of Clinical Negligence at Waldrons, feels that many women who have had cleavage sparing mastectomies may be unsure of their options and rights having subsequently received reconstructive surgery.
“Many of the ladies who have received treatment at NHS Hospitals may be under the impression that they are not affected by the recall of Mr Paterson’s patients, as they had immediate reconstruction surgery, and do not realise that breast tissue has been left behind”.
In many cases the reconstruction surgery took place immediately after Mr Paterson finished operating, and many of the reconstructions were completed by Miss C Kat. Ladies in this position who have not been recalled by the hospital should contact the hospital to check whether they need any further investigations.
Nicola is acting for many ladies who have been treated by Mr Paterson, including several who have had reconstruction surgery.
She is happy to speak to any lady affected by these issues free of charge. With offices in Walsall, Brierley Hill, Tipton, Worcester, Dudley and Kingswinford, Waldrons also offer home visits where appropriate.
Nicola Lewis, Associate | Medical Negligence
n.lewis@waldrons.co.uk
Wychbury Court
Two Woods Lane
Merry Hill DY5 1TA
Tel: 01384 811811
CASE REPORTS:
MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE:
NEGLIGENT ‘CLEAVAGE SPARING’ MASTECTOMY COMPLETED BY MR PATERSON FOLLOWING DEVELOPMENT OF BREAST CANCER
The Claimant was 73 years old when, in 2003, she was referred for investigations following the development of a lump in her right breast. She was diagnosed as suffering from breast cancer and was scheduled to undergo what she thought would be a full right-sided mastectomy. The operation was conducted by Mr Paterson at Solihull Hospital.
In early 2009, she received a letter from the Solihull Hospital, inviting her to attend for a mammogram. The mammogram showed that her breast cancer had returned, despite having the surgery in 2003. It was subsequently found that Mr Paterson had carried out a non-approved ‘Cleavage Sparing’ mastectomy, and that breast tissue had been wrongly left behind, and that the cancer had probably developed from this tissue.
The Claimant had to undergo further surgery to remove the remaining tissue, as well as having radiotherapy. Both the additional surgery and the radiotherapy could have been avoided had a full mastectomy been completed in 2003. The Claimant received £62,500 compensation for what she had been through.
PERSONAL INJURY:
INJURY AT WORK
Dawn Cash has recently settled a claim for a Client who was injured at work when he tripped on plastic matting.
Although at first he was just embarrassed apart from the usual tingling and numbness in his hands where he had put them out to save himself and a sore knee and ankle, it became increasingly obvious over time that the tingling and numbness sensation in his hands was still not resolving and he was becoming more and more tired each day, so much so that he had to crawl up the stairs to his bedroom. More alarmingly, he was finding it difficult to coordinate his feet to walk and was experiencing severe low back pain.
He went to his GP who referred him to the Hospital. The Hospital carried out an MRI scan which showed a disc prolapse with the spur of the vertebrae pressing on his spinal cord. He had compression surgery at the QE Hospital in Birmingham to stabilise his condition but he has been left with permanent damage including difficulties walking as well as neck pain, low back pain, permanent numbness in both hands and arms and left leg. He remains on very strong painkillers which he has to take every day.
The medical expert considered that because the accident did not involve hitting his head or neck, the Client must have had an underlying condition of which there were no symptoms which must have been brought forward by the accident of a period between 3 – 5 years.
He settled for compensation of £60,000.
