C (then aged 52 years) attended an initial consultation with D on 15 March 2019 and on 21 March 2019, C underwent a flexible sigmoidoscopy performed by D. On 20 April 2019, C attended a further appointment with D by which time he had diagnosed C with haemorrhoids which he graded as Grade 2 / 3. She agreed on D’s advice to undergo a ligasure haemorrhoidectomy [2]
On [13 June 2019] D performed this operation on C. Sadly, this ordinarily routine surgery resulted in C developing anal stenosis (also known as “anal stricture”) which is a rare but serious complication of this surgery. This has, unusually, left her with life changing consequences [3]
The … allegations of negligence that C makes in this trial are that D was negligent in respect of his (i) grading of her haemorrhoids; (ii) failure to discuss and offer non-surgical treatment options as an alternative to surgery; and (iii) failure to adequately explain the risks and benefits of the surgical haemorrhoidectomy. C alleges that but for these negligent failures she would have chosen non-surgical treatment options rather than surgery and would therefore have avoided the complications that she suffered as a result. [4]
I find that C has not proved on the balance of probabilities that D incorrectly graded the claimant’s haemorrhoids as grade 2 / 3 when in fact they should have been graded as grade 1 / 2. [125]
I find that C has not proved on the balance of probabilities that D failed to advise her of the risks and benefits of a surgical haemorrhoidectomy including failing to advise her of the risk of anal stenosis. [140]
C has failed to prove her case on liability and causation [150]
medicalnegligencenow.com 