C was born on 29 March 1986. In April 2013 (aged 27) he was a professional football player… During a match on 1 April 2013 his lower left fibula was fractured in a tackle. He was referred to D, a consultant orthopaedic surgeon, who reduced and fixed the fracture to the fibula and additionally performed an ankle arthroscopy with debridement of scar tissue and loose cartilage in the ankle together with microfracture to the claimant’s left talus bone. [1]
C brings this action for damages for personal injury arising from the alleged negligence of D in performing ankle surgery. It is C’s case that D’s surgery ought reasonably to have been limited to reduction and fixation of the fibula and the ankle should have been left alone. [2]
C’s career started in 2002 when he was 15 years old… On 10 February 2005 he suffered a left fibula fracture. He described the injury as having been caused by an “awkward on-pitch tackle” with the defender’s weight having fallen on to his left leg, fracturing the fibula and causing ligament damage. He underwent open reduction and internal fixation surgery on 11 February 2005. The procedure was undertaken by a consultant orthopaedic and trauma surgeon… C was unable to play for the rest of the season but returned to training on 2 July 2005 and was back playing again at the beginning of the 2005/2006 season. [5]
On 1 April 2013, whilst playing he was involved in another on-pitch collision with a defender. On 2 April 2013 he underwent an MRI scan and plain x rays which demonstrated that he had in fact sustained a left fibular fracture. [6]
On 8 April, D met C. He recorded: “he has not had any significant symptoms in his ankle since the previous fracture other than some stiffness and he certainly has always had a reduced knee to wall test on this side but has been asymptomatic; he says this has never bothered him”
This claim revolves around D’s decision, on 8 April 2013, to perform ankle surgery. [20]
C’s case that D’s decision to undertake an arthroscopy of the C’s left ankle (with consequential debridement of arthrofibrosis and of loose or loosened cartilage over the dome of the talus bone) and perform a microfracture technique on the exposed talus bone was negligent… [21]
D’s case is that during the tackle in April 2013 C sustained significant acute injuries [23]
The breach of duty questions focus upon D’s decision to perform an arthroscopy (and associated procedures) on 8 April 2013 [30]
the decision to undertake arthroscopy (and the other procedures) was neither reasonable nor logical. I find that D was in breach of duty in performing an arthroscopy on a previously symptom free C who had suffered a modest acute ankle fracture only… the only surgery which ought reasonably to have been performed on 8 April 2013 was the reduction and fixation of the fibula and that the ankle should have been left alone and monitored. [114]
but for the arthroscopy, C would have returned to his pre-accident pain-free state. As I have found, the ankle injuries were modest only. [132]
C’s ankle would have remained pain free for a period of 3 to 5 years during which time he would have been capable of playing football at a high level. [133]
There will be judgment for C [134]
medicalnegligencenow.com 