Osbornes Law Secures £700K in Crohn’s Negligence Case

Jodi Newton

Negligent delay in diagnosing Crohn’s disease leads to £700K settlement

Jodi Newton, Partner, was instructed in a case against Maidstone & Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust (“the Trust”). Our client, who was the Claimant in this litigation, suffered significant and permanent abdominal, urological, and psychiatric injuries as a result of a delay of over two years in diagnosing her with Crohn’s Disease.

Background to the case

The Claimant attended her GP twice in September 2016 reporting symptoms of diarrhoea, lower abdominal pain, and rectal bleeding. Blood and a faecal calprotectin (“FCP”) level tests were undergone. The blood tests revealed that the Claimant had a low vitamin B12 level and a raised c-reaction protein level. The FCP result was abnormally high and, therefore, the GP referred the Claimant to the Defendant Trust.

On referral to the Trust, the Claimant underwent an abdominal ultrasound on 19 December 2016, which was reported to show no abnormalities. The Claimant underwent a sigmoidoscopy which was introduced to the descending colon only. The investigations undertaken, namely a gastroscopy, a sigmoidoscopy and an ultrasound scan did not investigate the proximal right-sided colon or the terminal ileum. Thus, these investigations were insufficient and inadequate given the Claimant’s symptomology, as the Defendant later admitted. No further investigations or reviews were carried out, which was a further breach of duty. The failures by the Trust are set out below:

1. Failing to appreciate adequately or at all that the Claimant’s continued low B12 level could have been indicative of a problem with her terminal ileum.
2. Failing to appreciate adequately or at all that a low B12 level, abdominal pain and significantly elevated faecal calprotectin were indicative of IBD.
3. Failing to investigate the Claimant’s symptoms and presentation adequately or at all.
4. Failing to perform a colonoscopy in late 2016.
5. Failing to diagnose the Claimant’s Crohn’s Disease in late 2016.
6. Failing to institute any treatment of the Claimant’s Crohn’s Disease.

The Claimant attended her GP twice in early 2017 reporting feeling unwell and continuing abdominal symptoms. The Defendant Trust wrote to the Claimant’s GP; it was reported that the investigations were either normal or required no further action, and the Claimant was discharged from the Defendant’s care. No further action was taken, which was a breach of duty, as subsequently admitted by the Defendant.

The Claimant continued to suffer from symptoms of abdominal pain and diarrhoea but was reassured by the negligent assurances provided by the Defendant’s clinicians and felt she had to learn to live with the symptoms that she was experiencing.

In early 2019, the Claimant attended the Defendant’s Emergency Department with constant abdominal pain. At this point the Claimant was 27 weeks pregnant. The Claimant underwent an ultrasound scan and blood tests and an abdominal MRI. A diagnosis of colitis was queried during a surgical review. The gastroenterologist finally identified that a small intestinal Crohn’s Disease was a possible explanation and following an MDT, a diagnosis was made of ileal Crohn’s Disease. The Claimant was readmitted the following day with worsening and severe abdominal pain and a high temperature; at this point the Claimant was 29 weeks’ gestation. The Claimant’s condition deteriorated and she had developed sepsis. An emergency caesarean section was required under general anaesthetic and abdominal surgery was undertaken at the same time.

Over the following months she required multiple complex abdominal and pelvic surgical procedures to treat the Crohn’s Disease and infection.

Legal proceedings

The Claimant instructed Osbornes to investigate whether there had been negligence in the delay in diagnosing her with Crohn’s Disease.

Complex medical evidence was taken from medico-legal experts and a Letter of Claim was served.

The expert evidence established that had the Claimant been correctly diagnosed in late 2016/early 2017 and undergone the appropriate treatment and ongoing specialist review, she would not have suffered the disease deterioration that she did in early 2019, which led to intra-abdominal sepsis and the ultimate need for both an emergency caesarean section and extensive repeated abdominal surgery. Further, the Claimant would have avoided the need to deliver her baby by way of an emergency caesarean section under general anaesthetic.

The Claimant has also developed abdominal, bladder and pelvic pain as a result of the above events and extensive surgery that she has required, namely Chronic Post Surgical Pain and Chronic Pelvic Pain. The numerous operative procedures required in 2019 have left the Claimant with significant cosmetic deformity. Her scarring is tender. She suffers issues with bowel and urological urgency. She suffers risks of future abdominal surgery due to the extent of the scarring. She was advised against further pregnancies. She has experienced significant psychological distress and developed a Major Depressive Episode and a Generalised Anxiety Disorder.

She was unable to pursue a full-time career due to the level of pain and disability from which she suffered and which caused her to suffer a significant loss of earnings.

In 2022, the Defendant made a number of admissions in respect of breach of duty, admitting that the Defendant did not adequately investigate the Claimant’s symptoms and blood test abnormalities that she presented with in September 2016. In particular, it is admitted that, in 2016:

1. The Claimant’s faecal calprotectin should have been repeated.
2. A colonoscopy should have been performed.
3. Repeat blood tests should have been performed.
4. The Claimant should not have been discharged from follow up without performing the above investigations.

However, the Defendant denied that the breaches of duty admitted were causative of a delayed diagnosis and injuries and therefore the Claimant’s solicitors had no alternative but to commence court proceedings against the Trust.

Outcome of Claim against the Trust

To investigate the case, medico-legal expert evidence was obtained from experts in gastroenterology, surgery, uro-gynaecology, care, plastic surgery, psychiatry and pain management.

Jodi Newton successfully settled our client’s claim for £700,000 after issuing and serving Court proceedings. The Defendant had initially refused to admit liability, but following efforts by both parties to explore resolution, a settlement was ultimately achieved.

How can we help?

At Osbornes Law, our medical negligence team combines deep legal expertise with a compassionate, client-focused approach to secure justice for those harmed by clinical failings. Led by experienced partners like Jodi Newton, we leave no stone unturned in investigating complex cases, collaborating with top medical experts, and relentlessly pursuing fair compensation. This case is a testament to our commitment to holding healthcare providers accountable and achieving life-changing outcomes for our clients.

If you or a loved one has suffered due to medical negligence, contact Osbornes Law for expert legal advice, by:

• Filling in our online enquiry form; or
• Calling us on 020 7485 8811