£22k compensation for suffering caused by delayed diagnosis of ruptured achilles tendon

Here we look at a case where a 51-year-old man received £22k in compensation for the suffering he experienced following delay in hospital staff providing a correct diagnosis of a ruptured Achilles tendon in June 2005. He was unable to resume full work duties for approximately one year after the accident.

On June 28, 2005, the claimant (C) attended a hospital of the defendant trust (D) after having fallen and twisted his ankle. He was diagnosed as suffering from a stretched tendon and informed that it would take some time to heal. He was advised to take paracetamol to control the pain and simply to apply ice and rest the ankle and was told that it should heal over time. C was subsequently discharged.

C consulted his GP to obtain the appropriate certification for absence from work. On the basis of the hospital's diagnosis, the GP reassured C in relation to the injury. However, as the pain persisted C attended an osteopath on a private basis who advised him that it looked as though the Achilles tendon had been torn and arranged for him to see a consultant orthopaedic surgeon, also on a private basis.

On September 26, C underwent a full examination by a consultant and provided a detailed history of events. A Simmond's test was carried out and C was diagnosed as suffering from an Achilles tendon injury. He was advised that he would need a scan and probably an operation.

On October 10, the tendon repair was carried out and C spent six weeks wearing a cast.

On April 3, 2006, C returned to light duties at work and in June 2006 he resumed pre-accident duties.

C sustained injury and brought an action against D alleging that it was negligent in (i) a failure to consider, as part of the differential diagnosis, a rupture to the Achilles tendon; (ii) a failure to carry out an adequate or appropriate examination; (iii) a failure of the treating clinician to summon help from more senior staff if he was unsure as to the correct diagnosis; (iv) a failure to carry out diagnostic tests. C claimed that had the injury been diagnosed and treated when he attended the hospital, he would have been treated conservatively and would have been able to return to work part-time after approximately three months and a full return to work between four and six months after the accident. He therefore claimed that due to D's negligence he had been subject to a delay of between six and seven months in returning to work to carry out all duties, as a result of which he had to undergo unnecessary secondary repair.

Liability disputed in part. D did not accept that there had been a formal breach of duty in failing to diagnose the rupture but it did accept that it would probably have been appropriate to arrange a follow-up appointment either in the accident and emergency department or with C's GP.

The Defendants in this case denied that they had breached their duty of care toward their patient by failing to diagnose the ruptured Achilles, however, they were willing to accept that they did not act appropriately by failing to arrange a follow-up appointment.

Unfortunately, the delay in receiving a correct diagnosis caused C suffer great pain and a more difficult treatment over a prolonged period. This meant he was unable to work for a much longer period than would otherwise have been the case and this in itself cause him financial hardship.

Eventually, C succeeded in recovering £22k in compensation for the pain and suffering as well as his financial losses such as loss of earnings and medical expenses.

Here at Boyes Turner, we represent many clients who have suffered similar injuries to their Achilles tendons. Unfortunately, it is all too common for A&E departments to not complete a thorough initial assessment and send the patients home with inadequate treatment. Inevitably, this will lead to the injury becoming worse and the adverse affect on the victim’s life becoming much greater.

Consistent with our policy when giving comment and advice on a non-specific basis, we cannot assume legal responsibility for the accuracy of any particular statement. In the case of specific problems we recommend that professional advice be sought.

Back to news