The claim the treatment of a painful recurrent neuroma in right foot. On 5 November 2008 D carried out a surgical procedure… she continued to suffer pain, developing a type of neuropathic pain: chronic regional pain syndrome (CRPS). (paragraph 1)
A alleged negligence both in the advice given and in the performance of the operation, as well as advancing a claim based on the nature of her consent to the operation. A trial on liability was heard… judgment for R the issue of liability: in short, the operation had been performed negligently, but that the negligence had not caused the claimant pain or suffering. This is the appeal from that finding. (paragraph 2)
A had suffered from pain in her right foot for many years; and on two previous occasions had been operated on for the removal of a neuroma. At the consultation D explained his proposed surgical procedure. This would consist of (1) exploration to locate the suspected neuroma, and neurolysis (a separation of the nerve ending from the neuroma if it were found), (2) excision of the neuroma and (3) the nerve ending either tied or buried, depending on the available length of the nerve… (paragraph 3)
Not every judge would have concluded that the appellant failed on the issue of causation, but unlike this court the recorder had heard the entirety of the evidence and was very much better placed to form an overall view of the issue. (paragraph 50)
Appeal dismissed
medicalnegligencenow.com 