May Martin successful in claim for delayed diagnosis of lung cancer

May Martin acted for the Claimant in a multi-track clinical negligence claim before HHJ Richardson.

May was instructed by Chris Moore of Hudgell Solicitors.

Factual Background

The Claimant had successful surgery for lung cancer in 2014 and was to be subject to regular follow-up thereafter. After attending follow-up appointments for approximately a year, the Trust failed to send the Claimant a letter informing her of the date of her next appointment. As the Claimant was unaware that a further appointment had been made, she did not attend. The Trust then discharged the Claimant from its care. The Claimant had no further follow-up in respect of her lung cancer.  

In 2019, the Claimant attended A&E with acute shortness of breath. She was diagnosed with recurrent lung cancer and given a life expectancy of 18-24 months.

Proceedings

The Trust admitted that it had acted negligently in discharging the Claimant from its care. The claim was defended on causation grounds on the basis that, even with regular follow-up, the recurrence of the Claimant’s lung cancer would not have been diagnosed at an earlier stage.

The expert evidence in the case was that follow-up monitoring by way of chest x-ray would not have led to an earlier diagnosis, but that follow-up monitoring by way of CT scan would have led to an earlier diagnosis. The Trust’s case was that the Claimant would have received an annual chest x-ray and clinical examination. The Claimant’s case was that she would have been monitored by way of CT scan.

The experts agreed that if the recurrence had been detected earlier, the Claimant would have avoided hospital admission and treatment in 2019, but her prognosis and life expectancy would have remained the same.

Judgment

HHJ Richardson found that the Claimant’s follow-up appointment in 2017 would have involved a chest x-ray and thus recurrence would not have been detected at that stage. However, the Judge also found that the Claimant would have mentioned that she was experiencing increasing shortness of breath at her appointment in 2017. There would have been investigations done into the shortness of breath, but not a CT scan at that stage.

The Judge found that, at the Claimant’s appointment in 2018, a further chest x-ray would have been undertaken. That chest x-ray would not have shown any abnormalities. The Claimant would again have mentioned the increasing shortness of breath which, by this point, had become considerably worse. At this stage, with the investigations in 2017 not having identified a cause of the shortness of breath, the Claimant would have been referred for a CT scan. The CT scan would have shown recurrence of the Claimant’s lung cancer and palliative treatment would have commenced shortly thereafter. The Claimant would therefore have avoided the further symptoms and need for hospital admission and treatment in 2019.