Recovery of damages against East Surrey Hospital and St George’s Hospital for failures in management of glioma

Our client was diagnosed in 2004 with a left frontal lobe low grade glioma. He was advised that this was benign and required only monitoring by way of regular MRI scans. These scans showed some growth of the glioma but he was reassured by medical staff and although surgery was discussed, he was advised that given the associated risks, there was no real benefit.

The claimant continued to receive appointments for imaging until 2014 and was told each time that there was nothing of concern. In 2019 he presented to his GP with a range of symptoms and after referral and investigations, he was advised that the tumour had transformed into a malignant tumour, that it had spread too much to be amenable to surgery and that he had a terminal prognosis. Further discussions revealed to the claimant that it was known that ultimately most tumours of this type do transform to malignant tumours and that the lack of further surveillance from 2014 onwards had been due to failures to follow up his care, rather than a decision that further surveillance was not required.

The claimant by this stage had developed various side effects as a result of the growth of the tumour, which were worsened by the effects of the chemotherapy that he required. In view of his prognosis and the fact that he appeared unlikely to recover sufficiently to resume work, he and his wife asked the clinical negligence team at Penningtons Manches Cooper to look into a claim in relation to the advice given.

The claim was complicated by the fact that the claimant had been managed by two different hospitals and that knowledge about management of these tumours and their likely progression had increased and changed over the period in question. However, after investigations and based upon expert evidence, we presented a claim on the basis that the advice given to the claimant was wrong and that with correct advice he would have had surgery earlier and a better prognosis. We maintained that there were errors in the reporting of the radiology scans in 2012, 2013 and 2014 which were wrongly reported as showing no progression and that there had been a negligent failure to continue monitoring the claimant after 2014. It was alleged that in the absence of any of these failures the claimant would have had earlier intervention and his tumour would have been managed for a longer period of time with improved life expectancy.

Letters of claim were submitted to both defendants. There were significant delays in issuing letters of response but these were eventually provided. Both defendants disputed the allegations surrounding the advice given to the claimant but it was accepted that there were failings in the radiology reporting. In view of the admissions made, we quantified the claim and sought to engage in negotiations; the claimant made sensible offers with a view to early settlement given his prognosis. However, the defendants would not propose a sensible settlement figure. We therefore advised the claimant to issue court proceedings against both defendants.

The matter started to progress through a court timetable but at the same time further negotiations commenced. After disclosure of further evidence and negotiations, the matter settled for a substantial six figure sum – and for considerably more than the claimant had offered to settle for prior to the issue of proceedings.

Partner Philippa Luscombe, who acted for the claimant in this matter, comments: “This was a very complex case due to the overlap of neurology and neurosurgical care at two hospitals, the changing knowledge about this type of tumour and how to manage it, and the fact that ultimately the claimant’s tumour would always have progressed. It was extremely hard for the claimant to learn that opportunities had been missed to intervene and prolong his life and that a tumour he thought was benign would ultimately be terminal. The defendants’ delays were frustrating but in the end we recovered a substantial sum of damages that will provide security for him and his family.”