Negligent spinal surgery - man left wheelchair bound and incontinent

A 42-year-old man received £1.6 million for neurological injuries sustained after a hospital failed to remove a bulging lumbar disc and instead caused a dural tear. He suffered cauda equina syndrome, had to use a wheelchair and was incontinent of faeces.

On 17 February 2004, the man attended a hospital of the defendant trust for a review of injuries sustained approximately 4 months earlier in a road traffic accident. An MRI scan showed that he had a large herniated disc which was compressing a nerve root.

On 13 September 2005, he underwent surgery to remove the bulging disc and during the surgery caused a dural tear. The following day the man complained of loss of sensation in his lower limbs and an inability to pass urine. The symptoms persisted for a further 6 days when it was decided to re-operate for the bulging disc to be removed. A revision operation was performed on 20 September 2005.

The man brought an action against the hospital alleging that it was negligent in (i) performing surgery at two levels and failing to remove the obvious prolapsed disc shown on the MRI; (ii) failing, after the operation, to recognise signs and undertake emergency surgery; (iii) failing to arrange appropriate discharge after the operation.

The hospital trust admitted that it had breached its duty but at first disputed causation, alleging that the man would have suffered some residual injuries even with timely revision surgery.

As a result of the negligent surgery, the man was able to walk short distances with crutches indoors but due to decreased lower limb motor function had to use a wheelchair out of doors. He suffered a loss of sensation in his bottom, genitals and legs. His bladder, bowel and sexual function we permanently damaged and he suffered constant neuropathic pain in both feet and legs which could not be treated.

He was incontinent of faeces and self-catheterised 4 times daily. As a result he required a colostomy and two revision procedures.

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