Our 54 year old client received $80,000.00 in compensation after a having his kidney removed unnecessarily. In 2010, during investigations for hypertension, our client had a renal ultrasound that revealed a complex cystic lesion on his left kidney and further CT scans were scheduled. The further CT scans confirmed the suspicious appearance of the left kidney and a referral was made for urological opinion. It was the urologist’s opinion for our client undergo a nephrectomy but that he should have a complete staging CT and renogram to ensure his safety.
After the renogram cleared our client for surgery, our client was admitted to have his left kidney removed; performed a total of 4 months after the original lesion was identified. Issues of medical negligence arose however when the histopathology reports post surgery came back revealing there was no evidence of malignancy. In other words, the kidney need not be removed in the first place as the correct diagnosis was in fact chronic pyelonephritis and atrophy but no cancer as previously diagnosed.
The consulting urologist in this situation needed to balance the need to appropriately treat potential kidney cancer whilst not inadvertently diminishing our client’s global renal function when he could ill afford such a loss due to his comorbidities for chronic renal impairment eg smoker, non-insulin-dependent diabetes, and hypertension. Further investigations and studies should have been conducted rather than quickly deciding on the removal of his kidney. Additional investigation and studies could have included obtaining an expert radiological opinion as to discrepancies noted in the imaging results as well as to pose further diagnostic possibilities. Some of these alternative diagnostic possibilities, rather than simply removing the kidney altogether, might have included additional serial imaging and even a core needle biopsy of the small renal mass.
Before coming to Gerard Malouf & Partners for the free consultation, this gentleman had no idea he had been the victim of medical negligence. It wasn’t until through extensive and exhaustive investigations, at no cost to the client, that the experienced solicitors at Gerard Malouf & Partners were able to identify the failures of both the urologist and the doctor who ultimately performed the kidney removal. The duty of care provide to our client was below that which is accepted by peer rational opinion in Australia and both the urologist and surgeon are now aware of the repercussions of having “ jumped the gun” and performing surgery before performing the requisite and recommended investigations.
Due to the their failures to properly care for our client, Gerard Malouf & Partners were able to successfully negotiate a settlement at mediation whereby our client received compensation of $80,000 for his loss all whilst avoiding the lengthy and costly process of bringing the matter to a hearing.
Should you feel a Doctor or Hospital have failed to provide you with adequate care, please contact one of the expert solicitors at Gerard Malouf & Partners to investigate on a no win, no fee basis, your potential claim for medical negligence.