Personal

Delayed Diagnosis Compensation Claims

If you have suffered an injury or the worsening of an existing condition as a result of a delayed diagnosis, you may be able to claim compensation.

SOLVING PERSONAL LEGAL MATTERS

Services for Clinical Negligence

We provide Clinical Negligence services in the following areas:

View less

In the vast majority of cases, when you present to a medical professional with a set of symptoms, they will be able to investigate, run tests and correctly diagnose what is wrong with you so that treatment can start as soon as possible to give you the best possible chances of recovery. However, sometimes mistakes are made and a delay in diagnosis can have catastrophic consequences to not only the patient, but their loved ones too.

If you have experienced a delayed diagnosis that has meant that your condition has got much worse in the meantime, or being diagnosed with the wrong condition first has meant that you've had incorrect treatment which has proven harmful, you might be eligible to make a claim for delayed diagnosis compensation.

Delayed diagnosis claims need to prove that the medical professional was negligent when attempting to diagnose you, and you have been hurt or have suffered as a result of the delay, in order for the claim to proceed.

Common types of delayed diagnosis claims

Experiencing an avoidable delay during your diagnosis is very difficult to deal with under any circumstances, but for some conditions, the delay can have very serious consequences for your prognosis and mean that it's now too late for you to be effectively treated. Some of the most common claim types include:

Compensation for delayed cancer diagnosis
Delayed concussion diagnosis claims
Stroke delayed diagnosis compensation

The failure to diagnose or a delay in diagnosis for any of these conditions could potentially make a huge difference to the available treatment and level of recovery that is possible.

How much compensation for delayed diagnosis settlements?

The sum of compensation that you're likely to be awarded for a successful medical negligence delayed diagnosis claim will very much depend on the specifics of what happened to you, the severity of the condition that was diagnosed late and the consequences of this.

For example, delayed cancer diagnosis compensation for a claim where the patient's condition progressed significantly due to the lack of timely treatment would often be a higher sum than where the delay didn't significantly alter the prognosis for that individual.

Whilst you may be hesitant about suing the NHS for delayed diagnosis, claims of this type can often help prompt hospitals and medical centres to alter their procedures and policies so that something like this doesn't happen again.

Why choose us as your delayed diagnosis solicitors?

Forbes Solicitors have a dedicated clinical negligence team who are highly experienced in delayed diagnosis claims and know exactly what is required for claims to be successful and the maximum possible amount of compensation to be awarded. Our empathetic and professional team will help you at every stage of the process and be the experts in your corner throughout.

Recent Cases:

There was a breach of duty in failing to diagnose lung cancer in a timely manner following a scan in September 2019. The Deceased would have had a five year survival of 80%. The wife of the 79 year old received the sum of £83,000 to reflect the statutory bereavement award and the dependency that she would have had on his income from pensions.

Life changing damages for a middle-aged man, who suffered delay in diagnosis of throat cancer, requiring laryngectomy following failure to spot and refer. Two defendants, robustly defended until exchange of medical evidence. Unable to continue in career successfully pursued for 20 years. Damages gave him confidence to retrain and become self-employed. Helps other patients with a voice box.

£26,000 awarded for failure to detect bowel cancer during a colonoscopy which led to a 16 month delay in diagnosis. Due to the nature of this tumour the outcome would still have been the same, but the treatment would have been different. Damages were awarded for the additional physical and mental pain.

Substandard operation. The Claimant was transferred to North Manchester General Hospital with a large bowel obstruction secondary to stage 2 cancer. The hospital ought to have performed a Hartmann's procedure. There was an anastomotic leak which caused peritonitis ( infection). The surgeon used tools that he was not familiar with. There was a poor oncological resection of only 4 lymph nodes. His delayed recovery from unnecessary emergency surgery delayed his chemotherapy and enhanced his pain.
Substandard operation. The Claimant successfully recovered damages in a claim against the Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust, where a Locum Consultant Surgeon, unfamiliar with a stapling device carried out primary anastomosis and failed to resect a number of lymph nodes, one of which was shown to contain a metastatic deposit. This was a poor oncological resection. The surgeon then failed to perform a defunctioning stoma. It was agreed by the defendant that this was inappropriate. If a laparotomy and Hartmann's procedure had been preformed he would not have suffered an anastomatic leak and would not have developed life threatening faecal peritonitis. He would not have suffered the pain associated with this, nor required a further laparotomy, admission to intensive care and a prolonged hospital admission. He would not have developed a wound infection, and delayed wound healing necessitating VAC therapy. In the absence of negligence he would not have been discharged home after 10-14 days and post operative chemotherapy would not have been delayed. The delay did not effect his life expectancy, but made an already difficult experience with cancer, much more difficult. It cannot be underestimated, the impact that such an error has on physical and mental wellbeing.
The Claimant received £26,000 following a devastating diagnosis of rectal cancer. The cancer should have been diagnosed on colonoscopy, but was not discovered until 16 months later. The hospital did not cause the cancer and evidence from an oncologist was required to stage the cancer and determine what treatment would have been available had it been spotted 16 months earlier. Despite the delay, the Defendant was not responsible for any reduction in life expectancy. The Defendant denied that the colonoscopy was performed negligently and both parties obtained medical evidence. It was the Claimant's case that a 24mm tumour should have been seen. During the 16 months the Claimant returned repeatedly to her doctor, because 'she knew that something was wrong'. The GP relied on the false negative, and she was not taken seriously. The symptoms were untreated and this impacted her physical and mental health.