Below you can find five case studies from our Limb Loss Legal Panel. If you would like to learn more about our Legal Panel, or if you have any legal questions or requirements please call our Legal Panel Coordinator on 020 7650 1305 or email legalpanel@limbless-association.org
The Claimant was aged 17, and was working as a labourer in a timber yard in West Sussex. He was assisting a colleague in the cleaning out of a "chip silo". This silo was used to crush pieces of wood into smaller chips for subsequent disposal. The wood was broken into chips by a rotating corkscrew-like blade at the bottom of the silo. Whilst the Claimant and his colleague were undertaking this work, the blade was continuing to rotate. His right leg became caught by the blade and he was subsequently pulled over and ended up with his body and left arm twisted and crushed around the blade.
The Claimant was trapped for over an hour and remained conscious throughout. His left arm was severed below the elbow and he also suffered a closed severe fracture to his left femur and a significant injury to his left knee. Whilst attempts were made to save the left arm, it was surgically amputated in hospital 18 days after the accident. The Claimant also had to have a total left knee replacement operation.
Given the Claimant's young age the experts in the case were asked to comment on how long the knee replacement would last. It was concluded that a knee replacement had an expected life of between 10 to 20 years at which point the Claimant would require a revision procedure. If a revision were not possible, arthrodesis or amputation would be necessary. It was concluded that there would be a 20 / 30% chance of the revision surgery not going ahead in the future.
Future losses were difficult to calculate as the Claimant was at the beginning of his career. He was working as a labourer but his intention had been to apply to the Navy at the age of 18.
If the Claimant were to have an amputation on his left leg in the future, bearing in mind the loss of his arm, his mobility and general level of disability would be seriously compromised. The Claimant would not be able to use crutches and would no doubt find it very difficult to manage two prostheses, one on the upper limb and one on the lower limb. It was clear that, should an above knee amputation become necessary, the impact upon the Claimant's life would be very serious indeed. An application was therefore made to the court to include a claim for provisional damages. A claim was made for lost earnings of over £500,000, and the claim for prosthetics and orthotics also exceeded £500,000. Transport costs were assessed at £78,000 with equipment and care amounting to over £150,000.
The parties attended a settlement meeting prior to the trial of the action. Settlement was agreed at £1,340,000 plus the payment of legal costs, without the need for the Claimant to attend trial.
Vicki was aged 19 and studying for a Degree in Physical Education, hoping to fulfil her lifelong ambition of joining the RAF as a PE Instructor. She began to suffer pains in her shinbones, initially put down to too much exercise, but her problems continued so she sought medical advice. She was seen by a Consultant who diagnosed her as suffering from a bone cyst on her right tibia. Removal of the bone cyst was arranged, a biopsy was undertaken and a provisional diagnosis of a malignant bone tumour was made. Assistance was sought by her local hospital and following detailed examination they diagnosed a malignant bone tumour and recommended the immediate commencement of chemotherapy and extensive surgery of the right limb...possibly even amputation. Chemotherapy commenced immediately and Vicki underwent a clearance biopsy. The malignant bone tumour was removed along with the majority of the tibia, and a titanium implant was inserted. Chemotherapy continued over the course of the next three months, with devastating side effects including violent sickness, hair and weight loss and general debilitation. Despite all of this Vicki continued with her University Course.
Less than a year later, following a fall that resulted in a spinal fracture to her right tibia, Vicki was advised that the original diagnosis was wrong...she had never had any form of cancer and the majority of her medical treatment was totally unnecessary. To make matters worse, the leg implant was causing Vicki considerable pain and she had very limited mobility. After thinking long and hard about her situation Vicki opted to undergo an above knee amputation. As a result of the previous medical procedures it was necessary for Vicki to have an unusually high amputation, making it extremely difficult for her to find a suitable prosthesis.
Vicki, along with other patients who had been misdiagnosed, pursued a compensation claim. She instructed a firm on the Limb Loss Legal Panel to represent her and liability was soon admitted. Eventually Vicki secured a six-figure compensation settlement, which enabled her to pay for special adaptations to her home, ensure the provision of artificial limbs for life and provide ongoing physiotherapy treatment.
Vicki's overall settlement is undoubtedly a considerable sum of money, but only £100,000 of that figure represents the actual injury sustained by Vicki; the remainder of the monies is made up from the past/future care requirements, accommodation requirements, loss of earnings and the provision of appropriate prostheses.
Vicki has, with the help of her medical and legal team, been able to rebuild her life. She is now married with two children, works as a sign-language specialist for children, teaches part time and raises money for her local hospice by swimming in sponsored events.
On 11th June 2003 at about 11.40pm Paul was travelling on an over-ground Silverlink Train en route towards Richmond. He got off the train at Gunnersbury Station, West London, where he was seen to be banging on the side of the train and making a good deal of noise. The general assumption was that he was drunk.
Gunnersbury Station has a curved platform which creates a gap of between 42cm and 1 metre between the train and the platform, when a train is in the station. Paul lost his footing and fell into the gap between the train and the platform and onto the tracks.
Two witnesses on the platform waiting for a train tried to rescue him and banged on the side of the train in order to alert the guard and prevent its departure. However, a few seconds later, shockingly, the train departed dragging Paul several metres down the track.
Paul suffered a traumatic below knee amputation and amputations to his left small and ring fingers and severe lacerations to his back and upper limbs. He had no recollection of the events leading up to the incident or the incident itself.
A firm on the LLLP took on the claim through the LLLP contact line from other solicitors. We believed that the whole procedure was fundamentally flawed in that there was a period of up to 20 seconds between the guard getting back into the train and the train departing, during which time the platform was completely unobserved. Given the potential for falling into the gap described, there was a duty of care and a breach of that duty.
The rail company resisted the claim on the basis that putting any safety measures in place such as CCTV monitors or mirrors or having any permanent staff on the platform was not reasonably practicable and the cost would be disproportionate. They called expert evidence to that effect.
In October 2008, the Court found that the procedure was inadequate. Paul was there to be seen. Others on the platform noticed his behaviour and indeed had tried to alert the guard to his fall. Had the guard noticed his behaviour, he would not have dispatched the train. Had the guard had an open-able window, he could have observed the platform up to the moment of departure.
Although the Court found that Paul had been drinking and had acted foolhardily in cavorting too close to the train, responsibility was equally divided between him and the rail company.
Damages are yet to be assessed but are likely to be substantial. Even half of the full value of his claim will enable Paul to surmount his injuries to a very considerable extent.
Please Note: As part of our agreement with the Panel, its members make an annual donation to the Limbless Association, which helps to ensure a good quality service. This financial agreement complies with the Solicitors Code of Conduct 2007.