Continual misdiagnosis by doctor resulted in unnecessary pain and operation

Am0eba

Not sure if this would be better in the medical forum but I thought I'd try here first.

When I was a minor, I suffered from extreme stomach pains. My doctor diagnosed me with IBS despite the fact that the symptoms did not stop after the relevant medication had been taken. I asked for an ultrasound but the doctor would not refer me as he did not think it was necessary. Despite no obvious proof that I had IBS, he insisted that his diagnosis was correct.

After five years of this ongoing pain and many appointments with this doctor, I ended up in A&E where - within an hour - I was finally diagnosed with gall stones, something that a simple ultrasound would have shown up. Gall stones can be easily removed without any major surgery but because my gall stones remained undetected for so long, my gall bladder had to be removed. My education has also suffered because for those five years I was misdiagnosed with IBS, I was unable to attend school due to the pain.

I've only had my gall bladder removed recently and I was just wondering whether I could or should take this to court.

nuac

A medical negligence action is a heavy and perilous form of litigation.

Many a person has had their gallbaldder removed without any ill effects.

Forget about it and get on with your life.

Nuac, seriously man, don't give legal advice that specific on an internet forum. You cannot know the full extent of this case without looking at the doctors reports, case history, presentable symptoms.

There could be issues of delay etc also, none of which you have factored in.

Amoeba, if you feel you might have a cause of action speak to a solicitor and get proper legal advice.

deman

nuac wrote: »

A medical negligence action is a heavy and perilous form of litigation.

Many a person has had their gallbaldder removed without any ill effects.

Forget about it and get on with your life.

I guess somebody removed your heart at some stage as you don't seem to have any.

nuac

Kayroo I wasnt offering legal advice, just general common sense.

A medical negligence action entails a huge amount of work and risk - results and possible exposure to costs uncertain. Even to get started you usually have to outside the state to get reports from medical witnesses - very expensive.

Such litigation should only be considered if a serious injury was sustained affecting quality of life and earning capacity etc. Removal of gall bladder is not in this category. Unless there has been a change in recent times, removal of gallbladder was the usual treatment for gallstones.

FreudianSlippers

nuac wrote: »

A medical negligence action is a heavy and perilous form of litigation.

Many a person has had their gallbaldder removed without any ill effects.

Forget about it and get on with your life.

Deleted User wrote: »

Nuac, seriously man, don't give legal advice that specific on an internet forum. You cannot know the full extent of this case without looking at the doctors reports, case history, presentable symptoms.

There could be issues of delay etc also, none of which you have factored in.

Amoeba, if you feel you might have a cause of action speak to a solicitor and get proper legal advice.

I agree with both of these statements. Nuac is correct that medical negligence actions can be and often are heavy and perilous.

On the other hand, Kayroo is 100% correct!

You clearly have a duty of care owed, there is causation (arguably) in that failure to diagnose gallstones at an early stage caused you to have your gallbladder removed.
The problem here is going to be showing a breach of duty. MedNeg is judged by a standard of practice, and it is possible that on your symptoms it shouldn't have been gallstones, eg symptoms didn't match.

A case for Medical Negligence is going to be an onerous and expensive process and I think that nuac was getting at was that for something so minor as loss of gallbladder (not even mentioned in the book of quantum) may not be worth your while.

As far as missing school, I'd argue that would not be foreseeable and you wouldn't recover for that.

In the end though, if you feel that you are willing to go through with the action for negligence your first stop should be a solicitor.

FreudianSlippers

nuac wrote: »

Such litigation should only be considered if a serious injury was sustained affecting quality of life and earning capacity etc. Removal of gall bladder is not in this category. Unless there has been a change in recent times, removal of gallbladder was the usual treatment for gallstones.

Some doctors prefer to go the medical route and put patients on medications for 2 years to dissolve the stones and there is always a risk of recurrence once the drugs have stopped.
Others simply remove the gallbladder as it is completely effective and has 99% chance of having no side effects or damage to the body.

nuac

Deman - I do have a heart.

I also have considerable experience of all sorts of litigation.

In medical negligence cases the defendants - usually the HSE and doctors - are covered by insurance, are defended by solicitors and counsel who specialise in that area, and can have the most eminent expert witnesses at whatever it costs.

Afaik, none or few Irish based medical people still in practice will give evidence alleging negligence against a fellow Irish medical. Very expensive going abroad for such evidence.


Even if a he/she qualifies for legal aid there are major worries for a plaintiff in taking on such an action.

Therefore unless the injury is really serious, the most kindhearted suggestion is to move on.

nuac

nuac wrote: »

Deman - I do have a heart.

I also have considerable experience of all sorts of litigation.

In medical negligence cases the defendants - usually the HSE and doctors - are covered by insurance, are defended by solicitors and counsel who specialise in that area, and can have the most eminent expert witnesses at whatever it costs.

Afaik, none or few Irish based medical people still in practice will give evidence alleging negligence against a fellow Irish medical. Very expensive going abroad for such evidence.


Even if a he/she qualifies for legal aid there are major worries for a plaintiff in taking on such an action.

Therefore unless the injury is really serious, the most kindhearted suggestion is to move on.

This post would not have given rise to my earlier reply. Just thought your initial response, while wholly accurate, might mislead someone without legal training into making a poor choice. Although my point still stands about us not having a clue what the actual fallout from the gallstones issue was I totally agree with what you are saying in the above post.

Tom Young

The answer to the OP is to see a solicitor. I do tend to agree with much of what was written above in terms of the practical side of life issues versus the litigation option.

Thread closed.