EC v NHS COMMISSIONING BOARD (2014)
The Claimant, a 45-year-old woman, received £15,000 for the unnecessary excision of incorrect labial tissue during a procedure to correct a posterior extension of the left labium minus which had resulted from a second degree perineal tear suffered after giving birth.
In 2006, the Claimant (C) gave birth to her daughter and suffered a second degree perineal tear. Following suturing and healing of the tear, a 1 inch posterior extension of the left labium minus, a “skin tag”, remained.
The skin tag caused C discomfort when in contact with clothing and her underwear, and the skin extension would swell during her menstrual cycle.
C did not seek surgical correction of the skin tag until her daughter was in full-time education. She considered that having the procedure earlier would have prevented her from caring for her child.
C did not seek surgical correction of the skin tag until her daughter was in full-time education. She considered that having the procedure earlier would have prevented her from caring for her child.
In June 2010, C went to her GP for further advice. She was referred to a specialist. It was noted she had an obvious skin tag and she would require a general anaesthetic to undergo a procedure to excise it. She was then referred to an NHS Treatment Centre of the Defendant (D) for the surgery.
In January 2011, C underwent a consultation at the Treatment Centre whereby she indicated to the consultant what should be excised by physically taking hold of the skin tag using her thumb and forefinger during examination. Additionally, by way of a diagram drawn by the Consultant, the location of the skin tag was confirmed and it was agreed that only this would be removed. C was given the option of a local anaesthetic for the procedure and opted for this as she was under the impression it would reduce her recovery time.
The procedure took place in February 2011. C was in extreme pain following the procedure and was advised by nurses caring for her that she should not have undergone the operation under a local anaesthetic only. Upon returning home, C noticed that skin had been excised from a completely different area to where her posterior extension was positioned, and that the posterior extension (skin tag) still remained.
C sustained injury and brought an action against D alleging that it acted negligently in (a) failing to acknowledge and act upon C's wishes to remove the posterior extension of the left labia during her pre-operative consultations and during surgery; (b) failing to remove the correct labial tissue, (c) removing labial tissue which C had not consented to be excised; and (d) referring to “mis-matching labial majora” within C's records when it was obvious this should have referred to the labial minora.
Liability were not admitted.
Total Damages: £15,000 (£15,023.29 RPI)
Type of Award: Out of Court Settlement
Trial/settlement date: 1/9/2014
Age at injury: 41
Age at trial: 45
For more information or to speak to a member of the clinical negligence team click here.
