Settlement in Complex Ophthalmic Claim Despite Expert Evidence Challenge

We successfully represented a Claimant in a complex clinical negligence claim involving the delayed diagnosis of retinal detachment by Specsavers opticians. The case presented significant challenges on expert evidence, particularly in relation to causation and extent of visual loss, yet our client secured a favourable settlement of £7,500 through strategic negotiation and timely litigation action.

Facts

In November 2020, the Claimant noticed a dark curtain across his vision, a red flag symptom of retinal detachment. He attended Specsavers on 6th November 2020, where he was reassured that his symptoms were not serious. At a follow-up appointment on 11th November 2020, the red flag nature of his symptoms was finally recognised and he was diagnosed with a retinal detachment. He underwent an emergency vitrectomy the next day.

Steps we took

As part of our investigations, Taylor Rose obtained the Claimant’s medical records and instructed a specialist optometrist, who was critical of the care provided on 6th November 2020 and confirmed a breach of duty on that date. Causation evidence and a report commenting on the Claimant’s likely future prognosis was then obtained from a Consultant Ophthalmic Surgeon. Whilst the surgeon supported the Claimant's case that the delay in diagnosis contributed to permanent loss of peripheral vision, he was unable to quantify the full extent of the visual loss because the Defendant failed to perform visual field testing on 6th November 2020.

This created a significant hurdle in proving the precise impact of the delay on the Claimant’s long-term vision. The Defendant admitted a failure to investigate symptoms properly, but contended this only required a two-week referral, not an emergency one. They argued the Claimant was treated within that timeframe and therefore denied that any injury was caused by the delay.

Outcome

With limitation approaching and the Defendant demonstrating an unwillingness to engage in meaningful settlement discussions, we issued proceedings in November 2024 to protect the Claimant’s position. This step led the Defendant to properly engage in settlement negotiations. The Defendant maintained that the Claimant didn’t require urgent treatment and therefore he always would have suffered the same level of vision loss – meaning that they didn’t owe him any compensation. However, a settlement was reached between the parties.