Group action claims against colorectal surgeon Mr Anthony Dixon

We have represented a group of claimants in their clinical negligence claims against consultant colorectal surgeon, Mr Anthony Dixon, relating to alleged negligence in his medical and surgical management of their cases while providing privately funded care.

The claims were pursued against Mr Dixon, who was represented by his professional indemnity insurer. Mr Dixon has attained notoriety due to the large number of claims brought against him for colorectal mismanagement, as well as the high-profile GMC investigation which saw him temporarily suspended from practising as a doctor in July 2024. Mr Dixon is due to come before the GMC again at a hearing scheduled to take place in the summer of 2025.

The allegations of negligence include failures to properly assess and correctly diagnose the cause of the claimants’ presenting complaints/symptoms; offer appropriate treatment; recommend and embark upon conservative non-surgical management of the claimants’ problems before proceeding with surgical options; refer the claimants to appropriate clinicians in other disciplines, most notably uro-gynaecologists in respect of vaginal prolapse, urinary incontinence and pelvic floor problems; and obtain adequate informed consent from the claimants for the surgeries undertaken. Claimants also alleged that Mr Dixon advised on procedures that were not clinically indicated; proceeded with unnecessary surgery; utilised mesh in the surgical procedures without consent of the claimants and without adequate indication for its use; and performed gynaecological and/or uro-gynaecological surgeries without the necessary skill or expertise in that field.

The main allegations of causation arising from these claims include pelvic pain, rectal pain, altered defaecation, lower back pain, lower urinary tract symptoms, faecal urgency, mesh erosion (or risk of mesh erosion), vaginal pain (women claimants only), dyspareunia (painful sexual intercourse – women claimants only), and psychiatric/psychological injury arising from the negligent events. Some claimants have required revision surgeries, and some have been left with a permanent stoma or will require one in the future. Additionally, it was alleged that claimants could suffer future surgical risks, eg adhesions and obstruction.

All claims have concluded pre-action.