12th
November 2013 [Blog No. 39]
Hello again, it’s me, Peggy
I met with the Rt. Hon Mr Kevin J Barron MP on Saturday last to discuss
further him bringing this matter up before the House on Adjournment about the
way I’ve been treated over the years by the NHS and Solicitors alike. He had
said on more than one occasion that he was prepared to do this for me but
nothing to-date has ever transpired. At the previous meeting Mr Barron had
requested confirmation of me wanting to go public on this matter.
As proof Mr Barron MP now intends doing what he said he would do I am
posting here a copy of my emailed consent for Mr Barron MP to go public with my
case.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The Rt.
Hon Mr Kevin J Barron MP
House of
Commons
London
SW1A 0AA
Your
Ref: KJB/SW
HARD COPY by Hand to 9 Lorden’s Hill Office
Dear Mr
Barron
Re: M A
Barnes - KPPCC - Ombudsman matter.
Further
to our meeting on Saturday 9th November 2013 regarding the
above-mentioned matter.
As per
your request I here give you my expressed permission and consent to discuss
this matter with the Minster Concerned and confirmation for you to bring the matter
up before the House on adjournment to allow the matter to go public, and I am
doing that here now.
If you
find you require any further information other than that already in your
possession you did say that you would let me know.
Thank
you for your time in overseeing the problems I have suffered over the past many
years at the hands of our so-called “Medical Professionals” and solicitors
alike.
I await
hearing from you.
Kind
regards.
Yours
sincerely
M A
Barnes
6 Pine
Avenue
South
Anston
Sheffield
S25 5HA
Tel:
01909 561 078
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Mr Barron MP had said in August 2008 that he would do this, and he asked
my husband to Draft details onto him on what I wanted him to consider bringing
up before the House on Adjournment. Unfortunately, Mr Barron did not at that time
carry-out his suggested intentions. I am posting here a copy of that draft
below for you to see for yourselves what my husband put to him. Mr Barron did
comment to my husband on receipt that he had requested no more than four A4
pages, and as you can see the Draft did run into five A4 pages. Mr Barron told
my husband that he had not heeded his discipline.
I personally believe that what my husband had put in the Draft document
was too close to the truth for Mr Barron to make public. However, I am alleging
here that had Mr Barron made the matter public in 2008 I would not be in the
position I finding myself in now. That is why I have again requested of Mr
Barron that he goes public with the current issues regarding the PHSO’s handing
of my case brought against Kiveton Park Primary Care Centre in early 2011.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
DRAFT DETAILS for House of Commons
SPEECH OCTOBER 2008
BACKGROUND OF CASE:-
A constituent of mine (Mrs Barnes) has suffered agonizing
pain in her right knee for over 15 years from having a patellectomy operation
performed on her knee in September 1987, which had been done subsequent to a tibial
tuberosity transfer due to the recurrent dislocation of her patella in 1969. It
wasn't until after a bony lesion (calcified body) had been removed from the
medial aspect of her knee, in what turned out to be a simple ten minute
operation performed by administering only a local anaesthetic in November 2002
that she became pain-free in her Right knee.
Medical records reveal that after the operation in 1987 her
knee had been reported as locking from time to time throughout her attendance
at the RDGH in 1988.
Professor Dandy,
Orthopaedic Surgeon at the Newmarket General Hospital, did an exploratory
operation on her knee in November 1989 but failed to detect the bony lesion,
even after he had been informed in a letter dated 5 December 1988 from the RDGH
that x-rays dated 18/11/88 revealed an irregularity seen on the medial aspect
of her knee, and in March 1990 Dandy himself did report that a bony lesion may
be the reason for her deep-seated knee pain. However, in May 1990 he
disregarded his own diagnosis and referred her back to her GP recommending she
see a psychiatrist.
In August 1991 x-rays were taken at Bassetlaw hospital which
had apparently highlighted the bony lesion but she was never informed by the
either the hospital or her GP of these findings.
In fact, in 1993, it is alleged that doctors closed rank and
rather than tell her of the actual problem with her knee (which would have
supported a claim for clinical negligence) in an attempt to disguise her knee
pain Bassetlaw hospital went ahead by inappropriately and negligently
administering a Guanethidine Pain Block injection. Unfortunately it had been
injected directly into her Right foot, as opposed to a vein. She has suffered
from a progressive pain in her Right foot ever since, and is currently receiving
treatment at the RDGH for what has been diagnosed as fatigue fractures to bones
in her Right foot.
In July 1996 she suffered a fracture to her Right ankle and
also hurt her knee during a fall but the Bassetlaw Hospital only treated the
fractured ankle and totally disregarded her reference to the knee pain. X-rays
taken of her Right knee, and also clinic notes dated 19/7/96 reported on loose
bone fragment on medial aspect of her knee but she was never informed by
Bassetlaw hospital of the problem.
She was subsequently advised by Consultant Mr Zeraati on 5th
November 1996 that he had identified a bony lesion in Lat View x-rays taken of
her Right knee at the Bassetlaw hospital dated July 1996 and also in films
dated 19 August 1991.
A request was made of the Bassetlaw Hospital for copies of
the August 1991 x-rays. The specific Lat View x-ray dated 19 August 1991 and
the image of the bony lesion which could be clearly seen on the medial aspect
of her knee in that film was identified by Mrs Barnes' husband to Medical
records clerk (Pat Hewitt) and Radiographer (Carole Perry)on 3rd
December 1997 when at that time they promised him copies.
On 4th December 1997 the Bassetlaw Hospital
denied the existence of the 19/8/91 Lat View x-ray, and subsequently, at a meeting
at Bassetlaw Hospital HQ on 9/6/98, Bassetlaw Hospital Radiologist Dr Howard
even denied that the image of the bony lesion could be seen in any x-rays
predating July 1996. She said it had grown in Mrs Barnes knee since having the
x-rays taken in August 1991.
It was agreed by instructed solicitors that public funding
should be obtained and a claim of Clinical Negligence pursued. Doctors,
surgeons and even solicitors instructed by my constituent were seen to close
rank. According to Lord Woolf (at 1.4 in his Clinical Negligence Protocol
Reforms Forum) a closing of rank by medics has been recognised, when a claim of
negligence is brought against a colleague of theirs.
Solicitor Mr Nigel Anderson, a Law Society Panellist
solicitor and also a Deputy Coroner, had been instructed by the Law Society to
examine the case files and to report back to them. In his report he stated that
he had been a clinical negligence Lawyer for many years and had never seen such
hostilities before, not only hostilities towards Mrs Barnes but also in
correspondence to one another about Mrs Barnes. He reported that when he wrote
to Mr King, an Orthopaedic Surgeon in London, who had indicated he was prepared
to treat Mrs Barnes' knee problem, he wrote back in a very peremptory fashion
and refused to have anything more to do with Mrs Barnes once he was aware of
pending litigation. Mr Anderson reported that Mrs Barnes had been unable to get
straight answers from anyone in the medical profession and therein lays the
problem.
One solicitor omitted
to send the whole of section 9 from a paginated medical file when furnishing
the expert radiologist with the paginated file which contained 11 sections.
Sections 9 were medical records obtained from Grimsby General Hospital which
reported on x-rays revealing an "Old Tibial Tuberosity calcification seen
on the medial aspect of Mrs Barnes' Right knee.
The same solicitor even reported on having obtained a
negative medical opinion from an Orthopaedic surgeon, and this resulted in Mrs
Barnes' public funding being terminated. It was later confirmed by the surgeon
himself that he had refused to take instruction on the case.
Mrs Barnes went on to represent herself at the pending court
hearing on 25 August 2000 against the Bassetlaw Hospital & Community Services
NHS Trust for a substandard of care in their treatment of her knee problem,
where the case was struck-out with an order for costs being made against her.
Mrs Barnes had a meeting on a private paying basis with a Mr
Pringshiem, a solicitor in London who had overseen her appeal in the RCJ. He
examined all the court documents and advised her that neither her solicitors
nor the judiciary had adhered to procedure in her case.
In June 2001 Mills Kemp & Brown Solicitors in Barnsley
agreed to obtain further public funding to investigate a case against the
Doncaster and Bassetlaw Hospitals NHS Trust for offering a substandard of care
in the administration of the Guanethidine Pain Block Injection into her Right
foot.
The Doncaster and Bassetlaw Hospitals NHS Trust was advised
of the pending negligence claim and further disclosure of medical records were
sought under Clinical Negligence Protocol. The Trust instructed Beachcroft
Wansbroughs Solicitors to act on their behalf albeit Beachcroft Wansbroughs of
Sheffield had lost their contract with the NHSLA for doing NHS clinical
negligence work, and Beachcroft Wansbroughs of Leeds did not have NHSLA
Panellist Status in any event. When challenged about this Mr Nigel Clifton,
Chief Executive of the Defendant Trust wrote back saying that he was able to
instruct whosoever he wanted on her case.
Mills Kemp & Brown solicitors squandered many tens of
thousands of public funds allocated to Mrs Barnes' case while dealing with BW,
and even inappropriately used the allocated public funding to draw up court
documents for Mr Zeraati, an employee of the Defendant Trust and who was also a
named Defendant on Mrs Barnes public funding certificate.
MKB obtained a 60-page medical report from Professor
Galasko, who was also a friend and colleague to Professor Dandy, and although
it supported Mrs Barnes case somewhat in her claim against Bassetlaw Hospital
it did contain several errors which allowed the report to skirt round Dandy's
involvement in Mrs Barnes treatment in 1989/90. MKB refused to request the
Galasko report be amended to account for the errors even though Galasko's
charges were in excess of £7,000.
The Defendant Trust was unwilling to disclose original x-ray
films dated 19/8/91 to MKB, those the Trust agree existed, and Mrs Barnes also
became very disillusioned by MKB over several irregularities in their handling
of her case and especially because MKB had on 30/9/03 given an undertaking to
Mr Colton (Risks Manager employed by the Defendant Trust) to deal only with him
or Beachcroft Wansbroughs in her case, and when MKB knowing full well that BW
had lost their contract for doing NHS clinical negligence work.
Mr Kieran Colton, who was employed by Doncaster and
Bassetlaw Hospitals NHS Trust, even went as far as making an affidavit for the
Court swearing that the 19/8/91 Lat View x-ray had never existed, and also that
he had authority from the Bassetlaw General Hospital (the Trust) to make such
affidavit. Investigations carried out by Mrs Barnes and her husband, by
contacting the NHS HQ in Leeds, verified that there was no such Trust as
"Bassetlaw General Hospital Trust" therefore Mr Colton had sworn his
affidavit as having the authority to so do by a non-existent Hospital Trust.
Mrs Barnes also had cause to complain about the services
offered by the instructed barrister because although his advice was supportive
of her case the Barrister was not prepared to consider the Defendant Trust
withholding evidence surrounding the missing 1991 Lat View X-ray or the fact
that Mr Zeraati had identified that particular film to Mrs Barnes and her
husband on 5th November 1996.
When Mr Barnes confronted Mr Brain (in a tape-recorded
meeting at MKB offices) about the way he was handling his wife's case Mr Brain
threw a very thick Law book across his desk aiming it at Mr Barnes and at the
same time telling Mr Barnes to do the ****** job himself if he thought he could
do better.
In May 2004, at the time when Mrs Barnes was seeking to
instruct an alternative firm of solicitors, Mr Brain of MKB struck a deal with
Carolyn Smiley, the Solicitor who had conduct of her case at the Legal Services
Commission, to divert mail to Mrs Barnes C/o MKB in Barnsley, which was
intended for Mrs Barnes' informing her that her funding certificate had been
upgraded to "Full Representation". MKB went on to seek the advice of
another Barrister and to have a conference with the Barrister and Galasko
without inviting Mrs Barnes to attend. On submissions made by MKB and further
submissions from Galasko the newly instructed barrister provided MKB with an
adverse advice in an attempt to sabotage her case.
MKB then instructed a Law Costs draughtsman to consider a 70%
uplift on their bill of costs because Mrs Barnes, they said, had been difficult
to handle. In the same letter MKB also requested that Mrs Barnes should not to
be informed of the uplift or the costs involved because she would oppose it.
MKB's bill of costs overrode the amount made available by
the Legal Services commission and Mrs Barnes had to "Show Cause" as
to why her case should continue. Public funding was reinstated but neither Mrs
Barnes nor I (Mr Barron) was aware that it was limited to simply obtaining a
report from another solicitor.
Peter Maughan, a solicitor in Teeside was instructed by Mrs
Barnes in November 2004 on the understanding that she would be represented with
the support of Public Funding at the next court hearing scheduled for 14th
March 2005.
When I (Mr Barron) spoke to Mr Peter Maughan on the telephone I
myself was of the understanding that he was actually taking instruction on her
case, he didn't say no, nor did he inform me that the LSC had simply asked him
to make a report based on the information he had to hand.
I myself (Mr Barron) voiced
my concerns to Mrs Barnes about the report which had been based on
misinformation provided by MKB. The report did not support further funding and
it did not arrive at the LSC within the allotted time scale of 14-days for a
solicitor making any such a report or representation prior to any pending court
hearing date and Mrs Barnes was left to represent herself yet again in the
Barnsley County Court on 14 March 2005.
Mrs Barnes continued to represent herself against the
Defendant Trust, and at the Court hearing in the Sheffield County Court on 5th
September 2005 HHJ Moore informed her and the Defendant's solicitor that she
had a case. He handed back all the case files to both parties and instructed
them to get the matter settled. This was reiterated in the Transcript of his
Judgment copied to me (Mr Barron).
Subsequently, on 15th December 2005 and at the
specific request of Nigel Clifton (Chief Executive of the Defendant Trust) MKB
sent all Mrs Barnes x-rays to the Defendant Trust for his attention, even
x-rays and scan films which Mrs Barnes had loaned to MKB whist they had conduct
of the case together with all the films obtained by MKB from various other
hospitals. This was surely a serious breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 by
MKB in any event?
In a sound recorded meeting with Mr Tubbs, the Defendant's
medical expert, at the time Mr Barnes was discussing with him what could be
seen in the 18/11/88 x-rays of Mrs Barnes' Right knee, Mr Tubbs confirmed to Mr
and Mrs Barnes that it (the bony lesion/calcification) was to be seen in the
1991 films anyway.
Mr Tubbs made a Liability and Causation Report dated 27
December 2005 and also a Report on Condition and Prognosis dated 6 April 2006
for the NHSLA but neither of these reports was disclosed. The NHSLA have
refused disclosure to Mrs Barnes' request made under the Freedom of Information
Act 2000. Which does beg a question as to whether or not to some extent the
reports may have been in Mrs Barnes' favour? Or still further, the Condition
& Prognosis Report may have highlighted that Mrs Barnes was still being
denied treatment for her ongoing Right foot problem.
Mrs Barnes tells me that it is her understanding that the
NHSLA is a Government Department and she is now questioning the transparency of
the Government in their dealings in such matters.
Upon the advice received from Mr Ian Hale (the Human Rights
Lawyer at French & Company Solicitors) Mrs Barnes together with my (Mr
Barron's) input after having a meeting with Browne Jacobson Solicitors with Mrs
Barnes and her husband, Mrs Barnes submitted a Part 36 offer to settle the case
expecting the Defendant's solicitors to respond with either a settlement offer
figure on their terms or by making a Part 36 payment into court. The solicitors
for the Trust did not respond nor heed the instructions of HHJ Moore and the
case returned to court and progressed to Multi-Track with a trial date window
set.
When the matter came up before HHJ Moore again, at a
Pre-Trial Review Hearing, he struck the case out as having no merit and he told
Mrs Barnes that he had changed his mind.
Mrs Barnes was unsuccessful with subsequent appeals, after
being misinformed by the Sheffield court on several occasions as to which court
she should actually file her appeals. She has been informed that she will
eventually be landed with a bill for costs in the region of £80,000.
When seeing the way in which she was being treated by the
courts, solicitors and even the NHS, she filed a claim in the Rotherham County
Court to protect the Limitation Date on a possible claim of Professional
Negligence against a firm of former solicitors, pending the outcome of the case
described here.
It is obvious from my (Mr Barron) overseeing Mrs Barnes
cases since my involvement in November 1998 that instructed solicitors have
said there is a case, there is a case, and there is a case until such time the
allocated public funding has been exhausted then Mrs Barnes has been seen to be
dropped at the court door just before court hearings. These solicitors together
with solicitors instructed by the Defendant Trust have been seen to squander
tens of thousands of pounds from the public purse and the claimant is then sent
away with nothing. Not only in Mrs Barnes case but it has been seen to be the
case in other clinical negligence claims.
Mrs Barnes is currently wheelchair bound once again with the
on-going problem with her right foot. She is in a plaster cast and says that
she is still unable to get straight answers from the NHS regarding her foot
problem.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Prior to the Government’s recent Recess in 2013 Mr Barron did again
agree to bring the matter up before the House on adjournment, and requested copies
of the bundle of documents as sent to and from the Parliamentary and Health
Service Ombudsman’s Office on the most recent matter regarding the KPPCC not
amending my medical records held by the GP Practice in accordance with the
Information Commissioner’s (ICO’s) Advice in 2002/03. At our meeting with Mr
Barron on Saturday 10/11/2013 I did provide Mr Barron with the requested copy
documents.
As you will have read from my previous blogs, the KPPCC did not amend my
medical records in accordance with the ICO’s advice by removing all mention of
court case, litigation and legal issues etc until such time my records had been
returned to them in year 2011 by my new GP Practice. That meant the KPPCC had
been successful in referring the adverse information onto the new GP Practice
thereby continuing the NHS’s back-coving culture in an attempt at preventing me
obtaining proper medical treatment for the continuing Right foot problem from having
the botched Guanethidine Pain-Block injection which was put directly into my
Right foot, as opposed to a vein, in 1993.
You will find from my previous blog postings that I was given advice
from a Consultant at the Rotherham DGH in December 2008 that he was an expert
in the field of Guanethidine Pain-Block injections and that the injection
should not have been injected into my foot for pain I was getting in my Right
knee, in any event!
This true story continues …….
NB: All
copyrights reserved
