STEPS Charity Worldwide

Registered Charity No 1094343. A Not for Profit Company Registration No 4379997

The STEPS National Office Help-Line is open Monday-Friday, 9.30am - 4.00pm (calls charged at national rate)

Address: STEPS, Wright House, Crouchley Lane, Lymm, Cheshire WA13 0AS

Helpline: +44 (0)1925 750271

Admin Telephone: +44 (0)1925 750273

Fax: +44 (0)1925 750 270


Contact STEPS

Click the button below to complete our enquiry form:


Contact Us
I Am:
Follow us on:
01925 750271
We don't take walking for granted
Print - Text Size + Text Size
Welcome, Guest
Username Password: Remember me

DDH litigation case examples
(1 viewing) (1) Guest
  • Page:
  • 1

TOPIC: DDH litigation case examples

DDH litigation case examples 5 years, 5 months ago #65546

  • pinkoona
  • Platinum Forum User
  • Posts: 1628
Dear All

I have put together a list of litigations cases that I have found on the internet regarding ddh. Has anyone else got any - if so please post here.

Many thanks


Developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) is a condition in which a baby?s hips fail to form properly. Sarah?s hips were tested at birth and a few weeks later but were wrongly assessed as normal. When Sarah began walking at 14 months, she appeared to have difficulties but her parents were reassured that there was no cause for concern. Sarah?s problems continued and one year later she was diagnosed as suffering from bilateral DDH. She had to undergo extensive corrective surgery and was left severely disabled.
We pursued a claim for Sarah on the basis that DDH could and should have been diagnosed and treated within a few weeks of Sarah?s birth and that this early treatment would have allowed her hips to develop normally. The Hospital denied liability and eventually the claim went to trial where the Judge found in Sarah?s favour and awarded compensation.
Compensation: ?355,000

Claimant pursued both Trusts in respect of a negligent delay in diagnosis of her developmental hip dysplasia until she was almost three years old. Liability admitted.
Claimant argued whilst with prompt diagnosis she would have required open-reduction surgery of both hips, this would have resulted in a satisfactory outcome until age 55 years at which point she would have required a bilateral hip replacement. As a result of the Trusts? delay in diagnosis the need for hip replacement surgery was brought forward by approximately 15 years for one hip and 30 years for the other. It was expected that by 45 years, the Claimant would require a Girdlestone?s arthroplasty on her right side rendering her wheelchair bound.
The claim was settled on a traditional lump sum basis for ?1,800,000 (estimated General Damages: ?115,000), the Court concluding such a payment was preferable to periodical payments in this particular case because:
? Care needs would fluctuate as it could not be predicted when surgery would be needed
? Given the level of care required, corresponding tax advantages of periodical payments would be modest
? Claimant had been born with septo-optic dysplasia and had learning difficulties for which she would require continuing care. Since these symptoms were not connected to the breach of duty she would not receive compensation for a major part of her care needs. Claimant would therefore have to rely on local authority provision for this element of care, which would be compromised by periodical payments since these would be taken into account for assessment of means.

Paediatrician Negligence ? Dysplastic Dislocation Of The Hip ? Failure To Adequately Assess And Recognise Congenital Hip Dislocation ? Adverse Long Term Sequelae For Child

The infant Claimant AJM (born 17th January 1996) was at all material times in the medical care of the Defendant. The Infant was born in a breech position. The Midwife noted ?hips √√?. Two days later she was reviewed by Dr H, Paediatric SHO, who made no note of a hip examination.

Following discharge, AJM was examined by a Community Midwife, but, despite the fact that the mother was concerned about the way the child?s leg hung out of the cot, the Health Visitor assured her that there was no problem. The General Practitioner on the six week check purported to carry out an Ortolani-Barlow examination and found nothing abnormal. At the 9 month check, the General Practitioner again marked that the hips were ?satisfactory?. Given the subsequent history, this must have been inaccurate.

By 3rd February 1997, the Health Visitor noted that the child was still ?crawling, pulls to stand, will stand unsupported briefly?. Again, there was no examination of the hips recorded.

A week later, the child was admitted to hospital with meningococcal septicaemia, and during this admission the child?s mother, TB, said to a Paediatrician, Dr L, that she was concerned about AJM?s inability to weight bear, but Dr L said he would have to look at this problem later on, because, quite reasonably, he was far more concerned with the meningism.

However, crucially, there was no follow up of this concern, even though on 19th March 1997 Dr L noted ?crawling ? one leg drags right?, and ?right leg tends to tiptoe, less willing to weight bear. No obvious difference of reflexes or strength in that leg?.

When the child was reviewed in May 1997, the Health Visitor noted ?not weight bearing R leg ? to be reviewed at 18/12?. Again, there was no record of an examination of the hips.

On 30th July 1997 at the 18 month check, Dr Z, another Paediatrician, observed she was not able to pull to stand, and could only crawl, but the possibility of a hip dislocation was not considered.

It was not until 1st October 1997 when AJM was examined by Dr J, Senior Registrar in Childcare, that she deduced from the child?s gait, and the longstanding ?flab of fat? at the top of the thigh that she was looking at probable congenital hip dislocation, and she carried out the necessary physical and radiological checks.

AJM was urgently referred to CJ, Consultant Paediatric Orthopaedic Surgeon, where she underwent traction and CJ attempted a closed reduction on 11th November 1997 (1) under anaesthetic, and an open reduction was performed, but the hip was noted to be extremely unstable and the initial reduction was lost within 2 to 3 weeks of the procedure.

A further examination under anaesthetic was performed, and a second manipulation carried out on 16th December 1997 (3/4) following which she was referred to Bristol.

MG, Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon, reviewed her in February 1998 and noted that the hip was stiff and that there was a longstanding high dislocation of the hip. He arranged for a further open reduction on 5th March 1998 at the Royal Hospital for Sick Children in Bristol (5).

An arthrogram was performed in March 1998 (6) followed by an open reduction during which the femur was shortened to relieve tension on the blood supply to the femoral head (7). AJM was then placed in a hip spica cast.

On routine change of the spica on 2nd April 1998, it was found that a 5p coin had become lodged in the back of the cast, causing a pressure sore. On 16th April 1998 ( AJM had a revision performed under a further general anaesthetic and an arthrogram, as MG felt that the hip was stiff and the osteotomy solid, and in view of the pressure sore, he wanted the child nursed at home, without any cast, with double nappies.

On 17th September 1998 (9), she underwent a further operation to remove the blade plate from her right femur.

When she was reviewed in October 1998, she was still walking with a limp, and had fixed flexion and an external rotation deformity of the leg.

MG considered that although the hip was enlocated, there was significant coxa vara and a high greater trochanter, which meant that there would need to be further surgical intervention later in AJM?s teens.

Letter of Claim

The Infant Claimant?s Solicitors were advised by their experts that it would be difficult to demonstrate that the DDH should definitely have been spotted before March 1997. In their Letter of Response, the Trust?s Solicitors conceded breach as from the failure to detect hip dislocation by Dr L on 19th March 1997.

Causation Arguments

It is almost certain that examination of the child?s hips at this stage would have revealed significant reduction of abduction of the right hip, in flexion, and asymmetry of the soft tissue contours. At 14 months, there was still a 60% to 70% chance that a single open reduction would have been successful, with no secondary pelvic procedure being necessary (although the opportunity to obtain and maintain reduction by closed manipulation and treatment in a plaster spica, was probably lost).

Instead, AJM had to endure 9 surgical procedures under anaesthetic, and it was difficult to be precise about what the future held for her.

She would require at least 3 further major operations, and probably a plastic surgery revision of the scarring. She was likely to require hip replacement surgery by her 30?s, and would thereafter inevitably require further replacements every 10 to 15 years, according to the lifetime of each prosthesis.

There were likely to be problems with her being able to do any manual assembly line work, or jobs requiring prolonged standing, as in the retail sector. It was too early to say whether the child had the academic ability to undertake clerical work.

There were concerns that she might have difficulty in childbearing, depending on the age at which she first became pregnant.

PSLA Damages

It was thought that General Damages would be in the order of ?40,000.00 to ?65,000.00, and there would be a Smith v Manchester award of some ?15,000.00, and past care, past travel and future care fell to be determined, together with future footwear and aids and equipment, and the future cost of medical treatment, according to the Claimant?s experts.

The Defendants conceded breach of duty, but the NHSLA denied causation, and argued that the treatment provided to the child would not have been materially altered, even if the hip dislocation had been discovered 7 months earlier. They argued that the need for further surgery, re-displacement and avascular necrosis following surgery, would have been the same. They argued that the only damage caused by the admitted negligence was an unnecessary increase in pain and discomfort for that 7 month period.

Therefore, they were only prepared to concede a very modest sum for an increased degree of additional discomfort for the period between 19th March 1997 and 1st October 1997 would be compensated, and they denied all loss of earnings/Smith v Manchester claims, and claims for past care, past travel, future care, future cost of medical treatment, and future costs. An offer of ?4,000.00 was made.

Defendant?s Offer to Settle

Ten months later, the Defendants made a gross offer of ?25,000.00 to settle AJM?s claim, on the basis that there were no recoupable benefits.

As the Claimant?s Solicitor?s provisional ?best case? valuation of the claim in the Letter of Claim of 11th July 2002 was in the order of ?236,000.00, there was clearly, at that stage, no common ground.

Pre-Action Negotiations

In the spirit of the Pre-Action Protocol for the Resolution of Clinical Disputes, the parties? Solicitors also agreed to pre-action mutual simultaneous exchange of medical expert evidence. There was some delay caused by uncertainty over whether the infant would have additional surgery during this period. In the event, the treating surgeon decided against it.

The Claimant therefore served a report from MG on condition and prognosis, setting out his up-to-date proposed treatment plans, and obtained a final independent expert report from Mr Mark Paterson, Consultant Paediatric Orthopaedic Surgeon at Barts and the London NHS Trust. The Defendants relied upon Mr Nicholas Clarke from Southampton University Hospitals NHS Trust.

Following an exchange of reports, the experts discussed the case on the telephone on 10th March 2004, and produced a Joint Statement dated 17th March 2004.

(As usual, because the Defendants would not agree to Solicitors being involved in the experts? discussion, it was found when the Joint Statement was received that the experts had misinterpreted a number of the questions in the Agenda for their meeting, and therefore Part 35 Questions had to be administered, and it took the experts 5 months to clarify their responses to those Part 35 Questions).

The History of the Action

The Claimant issued a Claim Form on 14th October 2004 and this form, together with Particulars of Claim, medical reports, and Schedule of Loss, were served on the Defendants straight away. The Defendants filed an Acknowledgement of Service indicating an intention to defend, and filed a Defence on 10th December 2004. Settlement negotiations then took place that led to a negotiated settlement in November 2004, subject to the approval of the Court.

From a ?nuisance offer? in April 2001 in the sum of ?4,000.00, the Defendants increased their second offer in settlement from ?25,000.00 to ?65,000.00 in November 2004.

Following receipt of formal Counsel?s Advice (taking into account all the adverse points accepted during the experts discussion and Part 35 Questions), negotiations took place between the parties with the Claimant?s Litigation Friend eventually agreeing to accept damages in the sum of ?90,000.00 subject to the approval of the Court.

An application was issued for Infant Settlement Approval, with the hearing eventually taking place on 22nd April 2005, before HHJ Andrew Rutherford at which time the settlement was approved. The Claimant?s costs and disbursements were agreed at ?65,000.00 inclusive. ?5,000.00 was paid out to the Litigation Friend and ?85,000.00 paid into court for the benefit of the Claimant.


Although the parties did not agree any of the elements of the settlement figure, after discount for litigation risk on both sides, the rough breakdown was as follows:

Pain, suffering and loss of amenity ?50,000.00
Past care and out of pocket expenses ? 5,000.00
Future surgery and care ?35,000.00




This case has a number of interesting features:

1. Adequacy of hip examinations involving female breech babies.

It is very noticeable that although the parties? experts were agreed in principle that the congenital hip dislocation must have been present at all material times from the child?s birth, at least 6 different clinicians missed the diagnosis before the specialist Registrar discovered it, because she listened carefully to what the parents had to say, and carried out a thorough examination.

1. Pre-Action meeting of experts

It is a matter regret, once again, that the NHSLA would not agree to a formal meeting of the experts with Solicitors present, but instead opted for a telephone conference, and refused to agree to a transcript. This meant that the experts came to a number of erroneous conclusions which were incorporated in the first draft to the Joint Statement.

Once the parties? Solicitors saw the draft Joint Statement, it was patently obvious that the experts had misunderstood the thrust of many of the agreed questions in the Agenda, and when they were challenged on this, their answers had to be amended so that they were the precise opposite of some of the answers they had given in the first Joint Statement.

This involved a second experts? discussion, a further draft of the Joint Statement, and numerous additional letters and telephone conversations before this point was recognised. In effect, there was no saving in costs by a refusal to contemplate the attendance of Solicitors at a formal meeting, or a transcript. If anything, there was a waste of costs.

3) Expert Evidence

The experts were quite a long way apart in their assessment of how many additional procedures would take place and when these would be likely to occur. This had significant impact on the future loss calculation and as there could be no certainty which scenario would ultimately prevail, the case was compromised roughly at the mid point between the two positions.


Claimant?s expert: Mr Mark Paterson ? Consultant Paediatric Orthopaedic Surgeon (causation, condition and prognosis)
Mr Victor Lewis ? Consultant Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (liability)

Defendant?s expert: Mr Nicholas Clarke ? Consultant Paediatric Orthopaedic Surgeon


For the Claimant:

Counsel: Clive Weston of Crown Office Chambers, 1 Paper Buildings
Mr Charles Lewis of Old Square Chambers

Solicitors: Lorna Sharpe of Burningham & Brown, Bath
Gerry Ferguson and Jane Measures of Withy King Solicitors, Bath


Lorna Sharpe began the investigation with a public funding certificate in 1998. On her retirement in 2000, the file was passed to Withy King.

For the Defendant:

Counsel: N/A

Solicitor: Adrian Neale and Julie Chappell of Bevan Ashford, Bristol

Clinical negligence
C (By her mother and litigation friend M) v Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust (2008)
The claimant, a 6-year-old girl, received ?10,000 after the defendant hospital failed to diagnose that she was suffering from developmental dysplasia of the hip when she was examined in February 2002, although settlement was achieved without admission of liability. Following surgery, the only residual symptom was a weakness of the left abductor around the hip which caused her a small amount of difficulty in balancing on one leg.
Claimant: Female: 2 days old at date of incident; 6 years old at date of settlement.
Clinical Negligence: On February 1, 2002, the claimant (C) was born at a hospital of the defendant trust (D). Shortly after C's birth, her mother (M) was informed that C's left hip was "clicky". C was examined by a midwife in the presence of C's grandmother (G). G alleged that the midwife had grasped C's ankles and pushed her knees back towards her chest and that during the procedure a small lump had appeared on C's hip. The neonatal record stated "Rt. "clunky" hip noted at midwife initial check".
On March 27, 2003, C attended a different hospital for an unrelated investigation. The paediatrician immediately noticed that C was walking with a severe limp and that her left leg was shorter than her right leg. Upon examination, it was evident that C had asymmetric skin creases. An x-ray revealed that there was developmental dysplasia of the left hip.
C required an arthrogram and was put in traction for one week and later underwent a closed reduction.
C sustained injury and brought an action, through M, against D alleging that it had been negligent as the midwife had (i) failed to refer her as a matter of urgency to an orthopaedic surgeon or paediatrician upon considering the findings of the examination; (ii) failed to make a full written note of the examination; (iii) failed to report to C's GP that she had found that C had a dislocated hip. C alleged that, had the midwife referred her for further investigation or, alternatively, reported the findings of the examination to C's GP, C's developmental hip dysplasia would have been diagnosed during the neonatal period. C argued that she would then have been placed in a harness for between approximately six and eight weeks and, on the balance of probabilities, the hip would have developed normally without the need for further treatment.
D disputed that the midwife had undertaken the examination in the manner described by G and settlement was achieved without admission of liability.
Injuries: C suffered from a delay in diagnosis of left hip dysplasia.
Effects: C required more extensive treatment as a result of the delay in diagnosis of her condition. She remained in a plaster cast for 12 weeks but made a good recovery.
C subsequently walked with a normal gait and her only remaining injury was a slight residual weakness of the left abductor around her hip which caused her a little difficulty in balancing on her left leg. However, she was able to participate in all physical activities.
Out of Court Settlement: ?10,000 total damages.
Background to damages: The settlement figure made provision for the litigation risk.
The case was settled on a global basis with no particular breakdown of damages. However, the following breakdown was estimated by claimant's solicitors:
Breakdown of General Damages: ?8,000 for pain, suffering and loss of amenity.
Breakdown of Special Damages: Past miscellaneous damages including care and travel costs and M?s loss of earnings: ?2,000.
Charles Utley instructed by Henmans LLP (Oxford) for the claimant. Beachcroft LLP for the defendant.


Claim for long term disability arising out of delay in diagnosis of developmental hip dysplasia
The claim arose out of the negligent delay in diagnosis of the claimant's congenital dislocation of the hip which was not diagnosed until the claimant was 7 years old. Had the diagnosis been made when the claimant was aged 18 months, surgery would have taken place shortly afterwards and the claimant would have had a successful outcome. As a result of the delayed diagnosis, the claimant was left with a considerably worse outcome both in the short and longer term. Liability was admitted prior to a Pre-action Protocol Letter of Claim and, after investigation of causation and quantum, a negotiated settlement was reached of ?237,500.


Blackmore -v- South Essex Health Authority (2002)5
Queen's Bench Division decision
The Claimant, Kate Blackmore, was, following delivery, examined by the midwife who noted "Barlows neg". The following day she was examined by a senior house officer at the hospital, who noted ?All systems, hips, NAD?. About 2 weeks later the Claimant was examined again by the Health Visitor and at the Child Health Clinic and no abnormality detected. Developmental dysplasia of the hip was finally diagnosed when the Claimant was nearly 2? years old. The Claimant subsequently underwent 2 operations. Despite these operations she remained disabled.
In this case although a child was examined by a number of different medical professionals the first failure to diagnose a dislocated hip was deemed to be the negligent act that caused the injuries the child sustained (from the evidence given the Court felt that the detection rate at the hospital was too low and that the doctor had not properly been able to explain the test she allegedly performed). Even though there had been subsequent examinations (whether or not negligent) the Court determined that it was the first examination that caused the injuries suffered and did not, therefore, break the 'causal link'.
It was argued by the Claimant's barrister and accepted by the Court that a Defendant 'cannot defend themselves by saying that it was acceptable for them to perform badly because other did so too. The standard is ultimately one for the Court to set, not professionals, who, given licence, may become sloppy, remain sloppy and justify sloppiness by reference to common practice'.

?300,000 recovered for Miss G with hip dysplasia missed at birth
The Defendant's negligence resulted in Miss G suffering extensively throughout childhood and adult years.
The Defendant's negligence resulted in Miss G suffering extensively throughout childhood and adult years. Miss G suffered continual pain in her hips throughout childhood and into adult years. Miss G had to undergo extensive surgery and suffered a permanent neurological injury as a result of the surgery.
It was alleged that had the Defendant acted in accordance with their duty, Miss G would most likely have been diagnosed with bilateral acetabular dysplasia within the first 12 months. Miss G would have been examined by orthopaedic surgeons using clinical examination, including Ortolani and Barlow tests. Miss G would also have been x-rayed during this period and following diagnosis treated with a hip brace. It was alleged that such treatment would have resolved Miss G's condition.
Following negotiations between the parties a figure of ?300,000 was recovered for the client.

Failure to diagnose new born's dislocated hip - ?25k compensation
Boyes Turner?s medical negligence lawyers won ?25k in compensation for a 5 year old girl after hospital staff, a paediatric physiotherapist and a GP failed to diagnose the dislocated hip she was born with.
After she was born, her mother reported that she was lying in a frog like position, but was told that this was normal and she was discharged from hospital. At discharge she underwent a hip examination by a junior doctor, which was recorded as normal. A month later she was seen by a paediatric physiotherapist who noted that her left hip was a little stiff and told the mother to do some stretching exercises. She was also seen by her GP and both hips were recorded as normal.
However eight months after she was born, a health visitor reported concern about her hips. Consequently an x-ray was carried out, which showed that she had a complete dislocation of the left hip.
She had to undergo three surgical procedures to correct the dislocation and had to wear a hip spica cast. If the diagnosis had been made at an earlier stage then, on the balance of probabilities, she would not have needed any surgery to correct the dislocation.
She has been left with significant scarring and currently has no substantial long term problems.
Her mother took advice from Boyes Turner?s medical negligence lawyers and a compensation claim was brought against the hospital for the failure to diagnose the dislocated hip which resulted in the additional surgical procedures and a period of pain and suffering.
Expert evidence was obtained from a consultant orthopaedic surgeon who considered that our client's long term prognosis had not been affected by the delay in diagnosis. Even though liability was not admitted by the defendant hospital, a settlement figure of ?25k in compensation was negotiated by Boyes Turner?s lawyers.
There was no cost to our client in bringing the claim.

Congenital Hip Dislocation
Medial Negligence Case Study
KG (A Minor)
The Claimant was born on the 13th September 1984. KG suffered from a congenital dislocation of the left hip which was not diagnosed until the 15th October 1987, routine investigations having failed to identify the CDH and despite the Claimant's parents expressing concerns that she was not walking properly. When the condition was eventually diagnosed, she was admitted to hospital and was treated initially by traction on a frame. She then had an examination under anaesthesia, after which, the hip was immobilised in a plaster cast. She was then put in a splint for 12 months.
The Claimant started school slightly late due to the splint and her schooling was affected, although in her early school years she was able, through determination, to engage in all activities of school. However, as she got older, her mobility deteriorated and pain increased which affected her concentration and ability to study. As the Claimant has got older and into her teenage years, there has been a steady and progressive worsening of the pain in her left groin and it is now more or less continuous. She takes Paracetamol and Ibuprofen as required. Without analgesia, she is unable to concentrate or to sleep properly.
The Claimant's mobility is impaired and she can only walk approximately 100 yards before having to stop. She requires care and assistance, particularly if she needs to go to the toilet at night and she finds stairs difficult. The Claimant's social life is restricted through her lack of mobility and she has a good deal of time off school, becoming more isolated from her peers as a result.
Degenerative changes are apparent in the Claimant's hip and she suffers a degree of pain as a result. The medical opinion, for both the Claimant and the Defendants was that she would undoubtedly come to hip replacement and would require several revisions in her lifetime. Various "holding operations" have been suggested in order to alleviate the pain and defer the time at which she would need a total hip replacement. However, as yet, the Claimant has not undergone any such procedure.
Proceedings began on the 27th September 1993. The Defendants included the local Health Authority, responsible for the child health clinic attended by the Claimant, as well as three General Practitioners who had attended the Claimant at various times. Judgment was entered thereafter against all Defendants on 3rd January 1997, after an Order for a split trial was secured on behalf of the Claimant. Assessment of damages was deferred, because of the uncertain prognosis.
Professor Duckworth reported for the Claimant, and Mr Dorgan for the Defendant. There was a joint meeting on the 16th February 2001 where it was agreed as follows:-
i) the Claimant required a "holding operation" in order to diminish her pain;
ii) without such holding operation, KG would require a hip replacement by the age of 30, if holding surgery were successful in relieving the pain the need for hip replacement could probably be deferred until the age of 40 to 45;
iii) the orthopaedic experts accepted the opinion of Dr Menzies, Consultant Gynaecologist, that the Claimant has a greater than 50% chance of requiring a Caesarean section in the event she becomes pregnant and has children;
iv) with successful holding surgery and hip replacement, thereafter, the Claimant will be able to undertake most occupations i.e. those which do not require agility or the need to be on her feet constantly, but she would be unable to undertake most forms of sport.
Professor Duckworth also advised in relation to the possible complications of the various operations that KG would be likely to undertake during her lifetime and the Particulars of Claim were amended to include a claim for provisional damages.
The matter was fixed for a disposal hearing, to take place on the 21st and 22nd October 2002.
The Defendants had, at the time of Judgment being entered, paid into Court the sum of ?25,000.00. The Defendants subsequently made a global offer to the Claimant in the sum of ?240,000.00 in full and final settlement of the claim at a round table meeting on the 24th June 2002. This was rejected. The Defendant subsequently increased their offer to ?270,000.00. The Claimant wished to accept this sum. It was envisaged that there would be an Infant Approval hearing. However, given that this was so close to the Claimant's 18th birthday the Judge in fact adjourned the matter and it was agreed that the Defendants would pay the monies into Court and extend the time for acceptance of same by the Claimant. Although heads of damages were not agreed with the Defendants, the Claimant's view in relation to the breakdown of the settlement figure was as follows:-
General Damages and interest ?50,000.00
Past Losses:
Care/aids and equipment/ miscellaneous/interest ?60,000.00
Future Losses:
Care and household costs ?31,200.00
Travel ?7,000.00
Aids and equipment ?21,800.00
Private medical care ?40,000.00
House adaptations ?10,000.00
Handicap on the labour market ?50,000.00 ?160,000.00
TOTAL: ?270,000.00
There were no repayable benefits.
Claimant's Solicitor
Olivia Scates
JMW Solicitors, Manchester
Mary Ruck
Defendant's Solicitors
Radcliffes Le Brasseur
Hill Dickinson
Defendants' Counsel
Sarah Pritchard

Both of Sarah?s hips were dislocated at birth. This should have been spotted and treated before she reached her second birthday. Unfortunately the diagnosis was missed by her family doctor and later missed again by a surgeon. Not until she was five years old did she receive treatment and although that was successful, the delay meant that her hips would fail and require replacement by the time she reached the age of 40.
Had the dislocations been identified and treated before her second birthday, the need for replacement surgery would have been deferred until much later in her life, with a consequennt reduction in the number of subsequent revision procedures required.
With our help, Sarah claimed damages and although her claims were strongly resisted, she received awards compensating her for her injury.

Existing Claim
Ref: 047
Date of Incident: 7th
December 1999
Date claim received:
15th September 2009
Claim Type: Clinical
Claim arising out of treatment received from a
Health Visitor. It is alleged that the HV failed to
identify dislocation of the left hip when the
claimant was examined as part of their 9 month
check. Documentation and information gathered has revealed
that as the date of the incident pre-dates the existence
of the PCT the claim may be transferred to
Northumbria Healthcare Foundation Trust which
employed community nursing staff at that time. It has
also become clear that at the time of the incident
Health Visitors in North Tyneside did not conduct hip
examinations at an infants 9 month check, this
required specialist training and as such was carried
out by GPs, the claimant?s GP records may provide
more information on who exactly carried out the 9
month hip check. This information has been passed to
the NHSLA, awaiting further instruction.

Estimated Costs
Damages = ?200,000.00
Claimant Costs = ?35,000.00
Defence costs = Nil
Current Status: On-going

Total Reserve = ?15,000.00
PCT Excess = ?250,000.00
Excess = ?Nil
Siomha 26/1/07 Pemberton osteotomy 2/9/08 GOSH - more surgery required

Re: DDH litigation case examples 5 years, 5 months ago #65553

  • lenacourt
  • Platinum Forum User
  • Posts: 5018
Wow! Makes me want to do something for Olivia but I wouldn't know where to start.
Olivia 26/9/06 - Bi-lat CDH DX Jan 08 age 16mths. 2 closed & 1 open reduction-11mths in cast failed. Bi-lateral pelvic & fem ost's cancelled due to complications from Ehlers Danlos Syndrome.
Night time abduction brace for the foreseeable future.

Re: DDH litigation case examples 5 years, 4 months ago #65568

  • penny
  • Platinum Forum User
  • Posts: 3059
Dear Oonagh

Thank you for taking the time to do this. I've printed it off for my lawyers in case there are any they haven't seen.

Penny x
Lily-Mae 31/01/05 Prof Clarke
Bi-Lateral CDH
Left open reduction x2
Left Pelvic Osteotomy
Awaiting Femoral Osteotomy
  • Page:
  • 1
Bookmark & Share This Page:

Welcome to STEPS. We are a national charity supporting children and adults affected by a lower limb condition such as clubfoot or a hip condition. Our website is a great source of information but if you would like to talk to someone please call our helpline on 01925 750271 or email

Supporting & guiding
Training & educating
Empowering & enabling
Providing & connecting
Seeking & campaigning

foot icon

Sign up for our Newsletter

for current updates

Click Here

Address: The White House,Wilderspool Business Park, Greenalls Avenue, Warrington, Cheshire, WA4 6HL