Suing the NHS/ my local hospital.

[Bellamy3690]

I was wondering how to go about suing the NHS. I am 19 years old and a student. My reasons for suing the NHS are that 10 years ago, I had a tonsilectomy at my Local Hospital and instead of just performing the procedure, they also removed my uvula and part of my soft pallete. As I was underage, my mother took on the legal claims, but the hospital denied what had happened and said that the other parts of my throat must have "dropped off" because of poor aftercare on my mothers part. Utterly ridiculous. Many specialists have seen my throat and the evidence is indisputable. I now wish to take on my own case, but I have no idea where to start.

[fadeout73]

You might be time-barred from making a complaint. Hopefully Barmaid will see this and she may be able to give further advice.

[Bellamy3690]

apparently I am allowed to take up the case as of turning 18 and have to take it up before I am 21, because I was underage at the time of the event

[fadeout73]

As quoted from you:-

"As I was underage, my mother took on the legal claims"

So you would be putting in a second claim?

[Bellamy3690]

I have no idea. Our first claim never went to court or anything, but it was a claim on behalf of me.

[Ramsbottom]

You really need to speak to a solicitor as it is a medical negligence case which are inevitably complex (even if the evidence is supposedly straightforward).

Getting legal aid for this is unlikely due to the nature of the claim but there are plenty of medical negligence / personal injury claim specialists who you could talk to for free (think of all the adverts on TV).

As a student you could even as a sudent or a lecturer doing law to point you in the right direction.

[Twenty20]

What are you hoping for? An apology or money?

[Bellamy3690]

Well I don't think an apology is appropriate after several years of speech therapy and re-learning how to swallow, whilst the NHS denied that the operation was performed incorrectly. I am more concerned that this kind of case doesn't happen to other people, because the hospital completely denied negligence, as I said, which is a seriously scary prospect.
Money is, of course, always useful as a student, especially as every week I had to travel to a specialist throat doctor in London, but it isn't the reason I am doing this. I think if it had been a more obvious part of my body they had damaged it would have been more difficult for them to deny, but it caused me a lot of problems and can still get very tight and painful at times. I know it is a difficult moral dilemma, because the NHS do a lot of great work, but having said that, these kind of mistakes are inexcusable and if they had cut another 3 millimeters upwards I would have had severe speech problems for the rest of my life.

[fredpuli47]

What happened when your mother took the case? Was there a judgment? Did she settle the case on terms that the NHS eventually admitted negligence, whatever they'd said before? Or on terms that they did not expressly admit negligence but made a payment nonetheless,just to settle?

There's a number of questions here.One is whether you have a cause of action now. It may be that you can argue that the true consequences following the operation are only now , or recently, apparent. I've a feeling that the rule, whereby you sue on obtaining your legal majority, is rather more aimed at cases where nothing was done on your behalf before. Otherwise, people would always be reviving claims which had failed in the courts, when they were still 'infants' , years and years later, with, in any case, great prejudice to the defendants when witnesses, if they could be found, had long forgotten the events and records or documents had been lost or disposed of. And .'Interest Reipublicae est sit finis litium' 'It's in the interest of the People that there be an end to litigation' as the old maxim had it.

You need a solicitor.

[Bellamy3690]

As far as I am aware the case never managed to even get to court. No money was ever awarded and the NHS never admitted to causing the problem. I will have to go through the letters to the solicitor before. It was never resolved and I was told by the solicitor then that when i was 18 I could take the case up myself as long as it was started before my 21st birthday
I will get in contact with the solicitors. Thanks for advice.

[barry1010]

Has the NHS given an explanation for removing the uvula and pallete?

[Bellamy3690]

No they said they did not remove it during my operation and began accusing my mother of munchausen by proxy. By this point the legal fees were becoming huge as well.

[Barmaid]

Sorry, only just seen this, been on hols.

You were "under a disability" until you were 18. Therefore the limitation period does not start to run until you reach your majority. However, on your 18th birthday, time starts to tick and you have 3 years to issue proceedings. (This is where the "must do it by 21 comes in").

You need a solicitor who specialises in medical/clinical negligence (ie not just any old bod - these things are complicated) and you will need a barrister to advise. I woudl suggest you speak to a solicitor asap.