Minnesota Headlines

Gadsby Wicks, a specialist firm of medical solicitors operating in Essex and East Anglia, achieved a settlement for their client who was wrongly advised to undergo a surgical procedure without proper warning of the risks involved.

Alan Mendham, a solicitor with 20 years’ experience and Partner at Gadsby Wicks, handled this case, achieving a fair settlement for his client.

The case

The client Mr H (anonymised to protect his identity) had been struggling with increased urgency, poor urinary flow and distension of his abdomen. Following an appointment with his GP, he was referred to a urology specialist, who conducted various investigations such as urodynamics and ultrasound scans.

“My client’s urodynamics tests demonstrated bladder instability,” explains Alan Mendham, Mr H’s representative in this case. “Based on this indication, this instability should have been the focus of his treatment, but unfortunately was not properly pursued.”

Initially Mr H was prescribed both Alfuzosin and Dutasteride, but this medication had no benefit. Consequently, he was listed for a transurethral prostatectomy, also known as a TURP surgery.

“A transurethral resection of the prostate is a procedure that involves cutting away a section of the prostate,” says Mendham. “This is recommended when an enlarged prostate is placing pressure on the bladder or urethra, causing problems with urgency and urinary flow.”

In the weeks and months following the procedure, Mr H experienced both faecal and urinary incontinence, incomplete emptying of his bladder, and urine flow restarting after he believed he had finished going to the lavatory. It has also made it impossible to sustain an erection since the surgery.

In addition to this, Mr H was advised to undergo a colostomy to better manage his faecal incontinence.

The claim

Mr H approached Gadsby Wicks about his poor outcome, who pursued his claim on the basis that he should never have been offered a TURP procedure in the first place.

“From the tests that my client underwent, there were no objective signs of the bladder outflow obstruction that is typical of an enlarged prostate,” explains Mendham. “Mr H should have instead been treated for the bladder instability he presented instead of the unnecessary TURP.”

In addition, the consenting process was judged not to have been carried out appropriately. Mr H was not adequately warned of the risks associated with TURP in advance, which clouded his decision-making.

“The poor consenting process was especially unfortunate in Mr H’s case. In his particular circumstances, the operation carried an even greater risk than normal of causing urinary incontinence and of providing no benefit to his condition”, states Mendham.

“This should have made it absolutely imperative that he was informed of the possible risks from the outset, but it was sadly overlooked.”

The result

Proceedings were issued, with the Defendants initially denying both breach of duty and causation of Mr H’s injuries and longer-term health issues. A satisfactory settlement was reached shortly before the case went to trial.

“This unfortunate case demonstrates how a series of poor, easily avoidable decisions can result in an unwanted, life-changing outcome,” says Mendham.

“The immediate decision to proceed with a TURP did not align with the symptoms presented by my client, and this was compounded by obscuring the risks involved with this procedure. If this had been clearly expressed to my client, or his bladder instability was investigated further, it is likely he could have received a better outcome.”

“I’m pleased to have supported his claim and to have achieved a settlement that will help make the long-term implications of this negligence easier to manage. The complexities of this claim presented an interesting challenge, and it is always satisfying to help someone find closure and security.”

This is one of numerous claims for complications after surgery that Gadsby Wicks’ solicitors handle every year. The firm recently shared a case where a costly delay during breast reconstruction surgery ended in an upsetting outcome for their client.

About Gadsby Wicks

Gadsby Wicks Solicitors is the only specialist medical negligence firm in Essex and East Anglia. Founded in 1993, every year they help people claim millions in compensation for delayed treatment, medical misdiagnosis, birth injuries, surgical complications and more.

With an extensive level of legal and clinical understanding throughout their team of medical negligence experts, Gadsby Wicks is considered one of the top firms in their field. They work tirelessly to support their clients through the most difficult and complex circumstances, settling 96% of their cases outside of court.

Gadsby Wicks is the first firm in England to have two or more lawyers accredited by the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL). They are also ranked in the 2024 Chambers UK Legal Guide, and Managing Partner Gillian Gadsby is both on the Clinical Negligence Specialist Panel for Action Against Medical Accidents (AvMA), and listed in the Legal 500 Hall of Fame for “Clinical Negligence: Claimant”.

For more information, visit their website at www.gadsbywicks.co.uk, or call their team on 01245 494929.

Media Contact
Company Name: Gads by wicks
Contact Person: Gillian Gadsby
Email: Send Email
Country: United Kingdom
Website: https://www.gadsbywicks.co.uk/