Misdiagnosis

dvdfan

A family member had a young child who was having issues with her eyes, headaches etc

After consultation, they diagnosed her with a lazy eye and put a patch on her. After multiple checkups the family were not happy with the diagnosis and went for a 2nd opinion. The doctor instantly recognized it was likely a tumor from a simple eye exam and referred her for scans.

It did turn out to be a tumor, with a large cyst on the verge of bursting and after a long period of multiple operations thankfully the tumor was removed. However, there was several serious conditions which resulted from the operation because it was in a delicate place which requires the young girl to take multiple medication for the rest of her life.

After looking into the legal aspect of the first diagnosis being incorrect even after multiple eye exams, the information they were given was since the time between the misdiagnosis and proper diagnosis was not that long and there was not a fatal outcome, there wouldn't be a case to answer.

Is this the case? it seems strange that a mistake is not judged as a mistake unless it leads to a serious outcome or fatality. It was not as if they missed it the first time and then found it later. They missed it multiple times when another doctor was able to tell instantly after 1 eye exam.

But because the family had the sense to get a 2nd opinion, the doctor that misdiagnosed is rewarded by having no consequences, this does not seem correct or fair that they are only libel if their mistake had a terrible outcome. The misdiagnosis was via a hospital through multiple eye check ups not a family doctor fwiw.

I understand that it would have more serious consequences if the result caused more serious complications or death but it doesn't make sense to me that there would be no consequences or case to answer at all.

In any case, that was probably 5-7 years ago so I do not think anything can be done now, but I read that in the case of misdiagnosis for a minor, they have the option of bringing a case for a period of time after they turn 18 but unsure if I understood that correctly.

Interested to hear any legal opinions on that or if the original legal advice that there is no case to answer is correct.

hullaballoo

No one here can fully advise due to the rule against legal advice in the charter as well as insufficient knowledge of the facts.

That said, I would be looking up solicitors who specialise in medical negligence claims if I were the girl's parent. They were sensible enough to get a second medical opinion, so it follows they would recognise there might be some value in a second legal opinion.

TherapyBoy

Although I never followed it up afterwards I had a similar experience. Starting when I was 8 I suffered with bad headaches, gradually getting more & more severe for about 2 years. They were initially diagnosed as migraines & I was treated with prescription painkillers. Eventually I was sent for a CT scan & they discovered a benign brain tumour. Multiple operations, medications, 2 courses of radiotherapy & so far 30 years of neurosurgery followed.

Contacting a solicitor with medical negligence experience would be the first step, they’ll be able to tell you straight out whether you have a case or not & what a likely outcome would be. The question I’d be asking is if the tumour had been identified quickly during the first Doctors visit, would it have made any difference to how the patient is now? If the answer is ‘yes’ then it’s worth proceeding further.

Fruks

In short, unless the failures you refer to (if true) caused damage, there is no case here. A case in negligence requires damage, in addition to breach of duty ( ie a mistake of some sort). As others have said, if the outcome would have been the same in either event, then in reality there is no case to be brought.

You are correct in highlighting the issue of age, the statute of limitations does not begin to run until the age of 18 in the case of the child injured during childhood. See s49 Statute of Limitations 1957.

I hope the child is recovering and that all is well.

Peregrinus

What others have said. Your immediate need here is not for a legal opinion, but for a medical one. Would the course of the condition, the treatment required, the long-term consequences, etc, have been less severe if the problem had been correctly diagnosed by the first practitioner? And, the second medical opinon: should a competent and careful medical practitioner have correctly diagnosed the problem the first time around?

The second question isn't necessarily answered by the fact that the second practitioner diagnosed it very quickly. The second practitioner usually has better information than the first; specifically, he knows that the first diagnosis has been made, and treatment has been given, and the condition hasn't responded to that treatment. That last piece of information is crucial in suggesting that the first diagnosis may be incorrect, and of course that's not information that the first practitioner had at the time of the first diagnosis. So the question is, was the first diagnosis negligent, given what the first practitioner knew or ought reasonably to have known at the time of the first diagnosis?

Only when you have a medic saying that the first practioner ought to have correctly diagnosed the condition, and that his failure to do so has made the condition, or its treatment or consequences, worse, do you need to worry about legal issues.

dvdfan

Thanks so much for the informative replies, really helpful