Derby medical negligence claim solicitors McIntosh Fleming Lawyers, specialise in no win no fee claims, and we guarantee that you keep all of your compensation without any deduction for our charges. E-mail email@example.com or ring us on 0800 1712215 . Case Study The Claimant is the widower and executor of the estate of ‘the deceased. The deceased had attended the Defendant’s hospital on 16 June 2004, complaining of shortness of breath with intermittent chest pain. She had been referred to the hospital by her general practitioner. Following initial assessment, she was reviewed by Dr Baiaguruswamy, medical registrar, who made the differential diagnosis of pulmonary embolism or pneumonia. The deceased had then been assessed by Dr Petkova, consultant chest physician, who diagnosed pneumonia. Treatment had been commenced on that basis. On 23 June 2004, the deceased suffered a cardiac arrest, from which she did not recover, and she died at 07:06 hours. The cause of the cardiac arrest was subsequently established on 25 June 2004 as having been caused by a pulmonary embolism. The Claimant contended that the Defendant’s staff should have continued to treat the deceased on the basis that she had or might have had a pulmonary embolism, that she did have a pulmonary embolism owing to deep leg vein thrombosis, and that had its staff treated her appropriately she would have been cured and would have gone on to enjoy a normal life expectancy. Instead, hi effect, it was decided to role out the possibility of a pulmonary embolism. The Claimant sought to bring the claim on behalf of himself and also his daughter (or in the alternative her three children). Following the receipt of instructions, the deceased’s medical records were obtained. A consultant respiratory physician, who was instructed to prepare a report, considered that the deceased’s care fell below a standard which could reasonably be expected, in failing to act on a presumption of possible pulmonary embolism clearly documented by her general practitioner and by hospital medical officers.A report from a care expert was requested in order to assess the loss of services provided by the deceased. A letter of claim was sent to the Defendant. Forms of authority were sent to the Defendant’s solicitors, in order for them to make enquiries of the client’s and the deceased’s former employers and for the release of the Claimant’s DWP file. The Claimant’s general practitioner records and employment history were disclosed. The Defendant’s letter of response was received. Breach of duty was disputed. It was contended that the deceased’s clinical presentation was compatible with pneumonia, that the diagnosis made in this regard was reasonable as evidenced by post-mortem findings, and that Dr Petkova’s treatment plan on 16 June 2004 was entirely appropriate. The consultant respiratory physician’s comments as to the Defendant’s letter of response were obtained. A conference with counsel and the consultant physician was attended. Proceedings were issued. A defence was served, denying liability and contending that the Claimant’s daughter and her children were not dependents under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976. A without prejudice offer in the sum of £50,000 was made by the Defendant. The case was allocated to the multi-track and directions were given. A trial window, with a time estimate of four days, was set. Attention was given to disclosure. A further conference with counsel was attended, at which a number of complicated legal points were considered, including whether or not a claim for care could be made in the dependency claim on behalf of the grandchildren. Witness evidence was exchanged. An increased offer in the sum of £75,000 was made by the Defendant. Part 35 questions were sent by the Defendant’s solicitors to the Claimant’s care expert, A Part 36 offer in the sum of £120,000 made by the Claimant was subsequently accepted by the Defendant. A draft consent order was lodged to reflect the agreement and duly sealed by the court.