Our client claimed damages arising out of a stroke which he sustained whilst he was being treated for a fracture of the left femur. He had fractured his femur when he feel off a ladder whilst attending to domestic chores.
Our client suffered from atrial fibrillation and various other comorbidities relevantly including three transient ischaemic attacks and diabetes.
When our client was admitted to Liverpool Hospital, we received bridging anticoagulation in the form of intravenous Heparin. Heparin is well known and a not insubstantial risk that in certain patients Heparin causes sensitisations which result in a precipitate removal of platelets form circulation resulting in thrombocytopenia and aggregation of those platelets which can cause thrombosis.
The Hospital’s notes showed that the Plaintiff had such an antibody and therefore it should have been known to the person administering the bridging anti-coagulation that it was inappropriate to use Heparin.
Further, we argued that putting our client on therapeutic anti-coagulation was not justified. It has bene quiet clear that since 1995 bridging anti-coagulation is not necessary as the increase risk of stroke without anti-coagulation is a miniscule risk. The appropriate protocol was to stop Warfarin 4 days before surgery and the resume it immediately afterwards.
Our client suffered a stroke and prior to his stroke he was very active, despite his age and comorbidities. He now struggles with simple activities of daily living, speaking, mobility and depression.
We had our client assessed by various appropriate experts who detailed the level of impairment and ongoing disabilities that affected our client. The reports prepared by our experts allowed us to quantify the damage suffered by our client and helped to clarify the monetary compensation that our client might be awarded by a Court.
We commenced proceedings in the District Court of NSW against Liverpool Hospital. We alleged that the Hospital owed a duty to its patients to ensure they provide adequate and appropriate care. By failing to provide this care by inappropriately administering anti-coagulation medication, it breached its duty of care to our client, and this resulted in his stroke.
The Defendant obtained their own expert evidence and agreed to engage in settlement negotiations.
Parties were not able to agree a settlement at the Mediation, but we were able to achieve one shortly after its conclusion.
At Gerard Malouf and Partners we are experts in medical negligence claims. If you have suffered from a negligent act performed by a medical practitioner please contact us today for a free consultation with one of our expert lawyers. We will be happy to discuss how can assist you on a No Win No Fee basis to obtain the compensation that you are entitled to.