Instructions to represent a widow whose husband died following a delay in diagnosing and treating a serious bowel obstruction. The claim involved complex medical evidence concerning his underlying heart condition and lymphoma, as well as a substantial claim for the financial support he would have provided to his wife had he survived.
Despite the Defendant disputing responsibility and serving expert reports shortly before settlement negotiations, solicitor worked with Counsel to assess the risks, challenge the medical evidence and explore different scenarios for the deceased’s likely life expectancy and ability to work. The claim was ultimately settled at a round table meeting for £350,000 plus legal costs, together with a formal apology from the hospital.
Summary
The Claimant’s husband was admitted to hospital with vomiting, abdominal pain and an inability to eat or pass bowel movements. His underlying bowel obstruction was not identified promptly, and his condition deteriorated. He suffered a cardiac arrest, sepsis and aspiration pneumonia before scans eventually identified an obstruction caused by an intussusception, alongside lymphoma. Despite emergency surgery and intensive treatment, he sadly died.
We investigated whether earlier investigation and treatment would probably have prevented his death. However, the claim presented a further challenge: establishing the financial consequences of the death required careful consideration of how long he would probably have lived and whether he would have returned to work.
The claim was settled for £350,000 plus legal costs following a detailed assessment of the evidence, advice from Counsel and negotiations with the Defendant. The outcome reflected a careful evaluation of the potential value of the claim alongside the risks of proceeding to trial.
Context
The Claimant was seeking answers about her husband’s treatment while also facing the devastating consequences of his death. Concerns centred on the failure to investigate his abdominal symptoms adequately and the absence of appropriate abdominal imaging when he was admitted to hospital.
The subsequent inquest provided important evidence about his treatment and deterioration. We obtained specialist medical evidence from experts in gastrointestinal surgery, cardiology and haematological oncology to investigate whether earlier diagnosis and treatment would probably have prevented the death.
The financial consequences were particularly significant. The claim included substantial financial dependency losses, reflecting the income and financial support his wife would have received had he survived, alongside the value of services he would otherwise have provided.
The initial valuation used an estimated further life expectancy of ten years in the absence of the negligence, with retirement anticipated at age 68. However, the deceased’s existing heart condition and lymphoma meant that life expectancy and his ability to return to work were disputed by the defendant, ultimately challenging the valuation calculated by the claimant’s solicitors. These uncertainties had a direct bearing on the value of the claim.
Challenge
The Defendant initially denied responsibility for the death. As the case progressed, however, important elements of the claim were accepted, including that appropriate abdominal investigation would probably have identified the bowel obstruction and that earlier surgery would have avoided the cardiac arrest and death.
However, causation and the likely consequences of the negligence remained complex. The parties’ medical experts disagreed about the deceased’s prognosis, including the effect of his cardiac condition and whether he would have recovered sufficiently from surgery to undergo chemotherapy for his lymphoma.
The timing of the Defendant’s expert evidence added further difficulty. Three reports were served only days before the round table meeting, leaving insufficient time to obtain full comments from the Claimant’s experts and discuss those responses before negotiations began.
Counsel advised the Claimant that the Defendant’s evidence could be challenged, including its assessment of the deceased’s cardiac condition and the assumptions underlying the prognosis for his lymphoma. However, there remained a risk that a trial judge might prefer the Defendant’s experts. The Claimant therefore faced uncertainty not only about liability, but also about how the Court would assess the deceased’s likely survival and future earning capacity.
These issues were central to quantum: the amount of compensation that could reasonably be recovered. The claim had been valued using a ten-year life expectancy, but Counsel recognised that a shorter period might be considered more realistic in light of the conflicting expert evidence. The team needed to assess what the claim might be worth under different scenarios and use that analysis to inform settlement negotiations.
Solution
We worked closely with Counsel and the Claimant to evaluate the medical evidence, the financial dependency claim and the risks of proceeding to trial.
The valuation distinguished between losses already incurred and future losses, and included financial dependency, services dependency, funeral expenses, the statutory bereavement award and other claimed losses. The financial dependency claim was particularly important because it represented the support the deceased would otherwise have provided to his wife.
The original Schedule of Loss had used a ten-year life expectancy to calculate the financial losses, providing room for negotiation. During the round table meeting, Counsel considered alternative scenarios based on a shorter life expectancy and explained their financial implications to the Claimant.
A four-year life expectancy produced an estimated claim value of approximately £375,000, while a five-year assumption increased the valuation to approximately £475,000. The five-year scenario represented a compromise between the parties’ differing medical positions and allowed for uncertainty about the deceased’s ability to work continuously or during treatment. It did not require the Claimant to establish that every year would necessarily have been worked in full.
Counsel considered that a settlement of around £500,000 would be reasonable in light of the evidence, while recognising the risks of litigation. The Defendant initially offered £200,000. Counsel countered at £500,000, and the Defendant subsequently increased its offer to £285,000.
Following further discussion, Counsel advised that an offer in the region of £440,000 to £450,000 would be a reasonable negotiating position at that stage, with a lower figure potentially representing the minimum acceptable settlement after taking account of the risks. The Defendant ultimately made a final offer of £350,000.
Although Counsel advised that the Claimant might recover more at trial, there was no guarantee of a higher award. The Claimant also faced the prospect of further delay, with a trial potentially another year away. Having already lived with the consequences of her husband’s death for some years, she decided to accept the £350,000 offer.
Impact
The claim settled for £350,000 plus legal costs, together with a formal apology from the hospital. The settlement brought the litigation to a conclusion without the need for a contested trial.
The outcome followed a detailed assessment of the financial dependency claim and the uncertainty created by the conflicting medical evidence. By considering alternative life expectancy scenarios and their effect on the value of the claim, solicitor and Counsel were able to advise the Claimant on the financial implications of settlement compared with the risks of proceeding to trial.
The final settlement was lower than the valuation based on the original ten-year life expectancy, but higher than the Defendant’s initial offer of £200,000. The negotiations therefore resulted in a substantial increase on the Defendant’s opening position, while allowing the Claimant to avoid further litigation and the uncertainty of a trial.
For the Claimant, accepting the offer was a personal decision informed by legal advice, the disputed expert evidence and the prospect of further delay. The settlement provided financial resolution after an extremely difficult period, while the hospital’s apology offered an acknowledgement of the failings identified in the claim.
This case demonstrates the importance of looking beyond the initial valuation in a complex fatal clinical negligence claim. Assessing financial dependency requires careful consideration of life expectancy, employment, future income and the medical evidence. Where experts disagree, the ability to evaluate alternative outcomes and negotiate from an informed position is essential.
Taylor Rose’s clinical negligence team supports families following the death of a loved one where negligent medical care may have contributed to the loss. We work with specialist experts and Counsel to investigate the circumstances, assess the financial consequences and help clients make informed decisions about settlement, taking account of both the potential value of a claim and the risks of litigation.
