Tuesday, December 31, 2013

31st December 2013 [Blog No. 42]

Hello again, it’s me, Peggy

Thank you all for viewing my blog over the past year, There is more to come over the year 2014. You just will not believe it!

I wish you all a happy and prosperous New Year.

This true story will continue …….


NB: All copyrights reserved   

Sunday, December 1, 2013

1st December 2013 [Blog No. 41]

Hello again, it’s me, Peggy

I allege that the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman is duplicitous when dealing with complaints brought against NHS providers by the general public.

No, after thinking about it, two-faced double dealing dishonest deceitful and tricky is too good a description for the PHSO, it looks to me as if “fraudulent” would describe them better! Mr Barron MP actually accused the PHSO of trickery at the time the PHSO changed the case reference number and started the new claim after them dealing with the matter under a case reference number for over 12-months.


See copied below my letter of 24/11/2012 to Mr Barron MP and also a copy of Mr Barron’s letter to Arif Delvi at the PHSO’s office followed by my letter to MP dated 8th December 2012. I’ve already copied letters into my last blog dated 11 December 2012 as received from the Ombudsman on 13/12/2012, so no need to reiterate their content again here.







After my husband meeting with Mr Barron MP on 14/12/2012 a letter was put together for the PHSO in accordance with Mr Barron’s advice. See copied below my letter dated 17/12/2012 to the PHSO together with the attached supporting documents for their information.




Believe it or not on 5th January 2013 I received a letter from the PHSO dated 4/1/2013. I was very surprised that after two years of the PHSO having my complaint how they must have worked on my case over the Christmas period. However, it was just a red-herring (a trick). The PHSO’s letter was actually shutting down my case to allow them run the same case again under a new claim reference number. There is a name that I call these people for pulling such a ruthless trick on an old-age pensioner, but it is unprintable, so you’ll have to use your imagination!!



We are a year further on now and the PHSO have again turned down my case by basically and simply duplicating their correspondence under another caseworker.

I reiterate here what I put in my previous blog, and that is that the Rt. Hon Mr Kevin J Barron MP has agreed (again) to bring this matter up in the House of Commons with the Health Minister.

It is my understanding that once our MP has put this matter into the public domain himself, the national press/media will be able to publish my story about the way I have been treated by the NHS, Ombudsman, and solicitors alike.

This true story continues …….

NB: All copyrights reserved   
















Sunday, November 17, 2013

17th November 2013 [Blog No. 40]

Hello again, it’s me, Peggy

I believe it’s not before time that “Wilful Negligence” by Medics in our NHS is to be criminalised. That would certainly have made those medics think twice who conspired to prevent me obtaining proper corrective treatment for my knee, and subsequently my Right foot problem in my case. Which was due to me entering Orthopaedic Surgeon Mr Majumdar (and subsequently others) into litigation?

You can see from my previous blogs that my cases had been fraught with medics wilfully blocking me from obtaining treatment by them denying x-rays existed as far back as 1988 and 1991 showing a bony lesion to be in my Right knee at that time, and the reason for me suffering the crippling pain in my knee.

Solicitors alike conspired to prevent my cases getting into court with Legal Representation. Maybe they should be next to be criminalised when found to be just ripping-off their clients and/or the LSC system.

I’d had a bellyful of these twisted solicitors, and as you can see there have been many instructed on my case, so I decided to take the breach of Data Protection Act 1998 by the Kiveton Primary Care Centre matter to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, with the help of our Local MP.

However, even though I put this matter to the PHSO via our Local MP, The Rt. Hon Mr Kevin J Barron MP, there was still conspiracy seen to be operating in the PHSO Quango and I am hoping to show you here just how they did what they did to prevent paying-out any compensation in the KPPCC issue. Mr Barron had said that I would be paid-out this way but it would not be as much as could be expected if it went via the courts.

However, they changed their reference numbers half-way-through the case so as to enable them disregard evidence put to them at the onset. Even Mr Barron MP referred to the PHSO as resorting to “Tricks”. Now, why should the PHSO resort to tricks if not to cover the backs of the medics?

The first letter was sent to the PHSO in October 2011 but it was just disregarded. It was put into what they call a holding file by Mr Lea Hedges, hoping it would just go away. Mr Barron MP seemed to think it taking the PHSO such a long time to respond over the KPPCC matter was encouraging. However, I now understand from what Mr Barron MP said, Mr Lea Hedges no-longer works for the PHSO.

In December 2011 I asked Mr Barron to chase-up the PHSO. It took the Ombudsman nearly 5-months to respond. See copy of PHSO letters dated 28 March 2012 copied below. I am copying in the MP and PHSO letters here for year 2012, as opposed to telling you the story, because you should find them self-explicit.


The Health Service Ombudsman responded under complaint Ref: EN-118242




Mr Barron MP responded in a letter dated 3rd April 2012

Copied below is Ombudsman’s response dated 17/4/2012 under Ref: EN-118242



I received a copy of the response from the KPPCC dated 24 September 2012 with a denial and rejecting my claim for compensation. The KPPCC had said the records were amended in 2003. However, Mr Andy Buck (Chief Executive) Rotherham Primary Care Trust confirmed in his letter to Mr Barron MP (Dated 10 March 2011) that the reason for the delay in the KPPCC amending my medical records (it had taken from November 2010 to March 2011) was that it had been an onerous task.

Mr Barron received a response in the Ombudsman’s letter dated 26/9/2012 still under complaint Ref: EN-118242
Mr Barron MP received my letter together with the response from the KPPCC dated 24/9/2012 which for some reason had been delayed and not sent until after the PHSO had made a telephone call to the KPPCC, and to which the PHSO had not obtained my consent before so-doing!
On 29th October 2012 I received a copy of a letter from Mr Charles J Hazel (Business Manager) KPPCC apologising for it taking from November 2010 to March 2011 to review my medical records. However, as I have contended in my blogs previously, the mere fact they were sent to my new GP in November 2010 prior to being amended had continued to convey to the new GP the issues regarding previous litigation. Wilfully, a back covering culture, yes?

On 13th November 2012 Mr Barron MP wrote to the PHSO urging a response, and he received a response in a letter dated 16/11/2012 but what had happened here was that the PHSO had subtly changed their reference number for this case from EN-118242 to EN-148574. When my husband telephoned the PHSO it was confirmed (in a sound recorded telephone conversation) that the case reference number always remains with the case throughout, from beginning to end. Now what does this tell you. Simply that the back covering culture continues!

The Ombudsman referred to them wanting a new complaint form filling in. What planet are these people on?

The next letter refers to them now writing to the KPPCC requesting copies of paperwork, and this after a year has gone by in any event!!





In my next blog I will show you how in year 2013 they PHSO writes requesting further information after informing me that I have furnished them with too much information. If I have given them too much why should they be asking for more information?  


This true story continues …….

NB: All copyrights reserved   





Tuesday, November 12, 2013

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

11th November 2013                                By email to: kevin.barron.mp@parliament.uk
                                                                   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   

Sunday, October 27, 2013

27th October 2013 [Blog No. 38]

Hello again, it’s me, Peggy

The Health Service Ombudsman has eventually taken her precious time to respond to the letter dated 22 August 2013 to Gwen Harrison (Director) PHSO’s Office from The Rt. Hon Mr Kevin Barrron MP.

It’s actually taken the Ombudsman 10-weeks to respond, and what a cranked-up response it is. Even Mr Barron was taken aback when I saw him yesterday, at the content of the letter he has received.

The Health Service Ombudsman, among other things, has ACTUALLY THREATENED ME with the threat of crippling me (this time financially) if I even dream of taking this case to a Judicial Review Hearing, and me, a disabled old-age pensioner!!!

Mr Scot Henning at the NHSLA did exactly the same along with the NHLSA’s instructed solicitors, Browne Jacobson in Nottingham.

I quote here from the final paragraph of the PHSO’s letter; Should Mrs Barnes initiate proceedings we will defend them. If we are successful we will be entitled to apply for our costs. We have successfully applied for costs in previous cases. I would therefore strongly advise Mrs Barnes to seek independent legal advice before deciding to initiate any court proceedings against us”.

The letter from the Ombudsman has been signed-off this time by a Suzannah Beazley, Head of Review Team! Who the hell is this woman here that thinks that she is in a position at the PHSO’s office to try and scare me off?

Is this what the PHSO call “BRITISH JUSTICE”? It would appear from their letter that  Ombudsman Dame Julie Mellor’s BRITISH JUSTICE is the same as Dr Tooth’s version of the “HIPPOCRATIC OATH” (see a previous blog on Kiveton Primary Care Centre) that is, that it was just something dreamed-up in the jungle, to satisfy the underdogs of this world, and they don’t go by that anymore!

And, is this what Health Service Ombudsman Dame Julie Mellor meant when she reported in the Daily Telegraph on 13 August 2013 that now she is the Health Service Ombudsman they will be seen to be “TRANSPARENT” in their dealings! They are trying to gag me! What part of the body is this woman talking from her …..? See Julie Mellor’s article in my blog dated 25 August 2013, blog No. 31.

Whatever next? Mr Barron could not believe it. He reiterated yesterday (26/10/2013) what he has said to me several time before, and that is that he is prepared to bring the matter up in the House with the Health Minister.

Mr Barron did say that this was the end of it but what I cannot understand is that the PHSO back in September 2012 had asked me/Mr Barron to provide them with the level of compensation I wanted to achieve. Mr Barron wrote back to the PHSO saying that they themselves would have a better idea of Quantum, and asked them to set the amount of compensation, my knowing, he said, it would be lower than any I could expect from a court settlement.


See copied below my letter dated 26/10/2013 to Mr Barron MP and a copy of the Health Service Ombudsman’s letter dated 18 October 2013 which he handed to me at our meeting yesterday.





You can see in the 2nd paragraph of the PHSO letter the writer refers to my complaint against the KPPCC for not amending my medical records in 2002/03 in accordance with the ICO’s advice at that time.

The ICO refused to take action against the KPPCC because, they said; the ICO was only able to issue advice to a Data Controller, and not able to take any action against them.

The KPPCC had apparently given the ICO assurance in 2002/03 that they had amended my medical records in accordance with the ICO’s advice. However, as it turned out when I moved to another GP Practice in or around November 2010 I discovered that the KPPCC had in fact not made any amendments to my medical records by removing all reference to litigation/court case etc, and in letters of referral to consultants, and I alleged that this had been the reason for me been unable to obtain medical treatment proper over the past years.

My medical records were not amended by the KPPCC until such time they had transferred reference to litigation issues court case etc onto the new GP Practice. By them so-doing the KPPCC had done exactly what they had wanted to do, they had made the new Practice aware of past litigation issues to prevent me from obtaining treatment under our NHS from the new GP Practice!

I do have proof that my medical records were not amended by the KPPCC until March 2011. The proof is contained within Chief Executive Andy Buck, Rotherham Primary Care Trust’s letter dated 11/3/2011 to Mr Barron MP. See extract, and I you can see that I quote exactly from Andy Buck’s letter;

“Thank you for your letter dated 8th March regarding Mrs Barnes' concerns in relation to medical records. The matter has been investigated by Mrs Sue Hart, Complaints Officer and I am now in a position to respond to you.

Following Mr and Mrs Barnes' decision to leave Kiveton Park Primary Care Centre and to register with the Chantry Bridge Medical Centre, as is usual practice, the South Riding Health Service Support Agency (SRHSSA) contacted Kiveton Park practice on 1" November 2010 and requested the medical records for both Mr and Mrs Barnes, it is recorded by the Kiveton Park practice that the notes were, as requested sent to SRHSSA on 3rd November 2010.

However, I am informed that shorty after forwarding the medical records to SRHSSA, the Kiveton Park practice received a letter from the Information Commissioners office advising them that amendments were to be made to Mrs Barnes' medical records. In order to comply with the Commissioners advice the notes had to be retrieved from Mrs Barnes' current GP Via the SRHSSA.

Whilst it is acknowledged that the Kiveton Park practice had Mrs Barnes's medical records for several weeks, it is important to note that implementing the Commissioner's advice was onerous. I am further informed that the advice given by the Commissioner has now been Implemented and verified by two senior partners at the surgery, and the medical records have been returned to the SRHSSA who will forward them on to Chantry Bridge Medical Centre.

I trust this information clarifies the position for your constituent

Yours sincerely

Andy Buck
Chief Executive


The doctors at the Kiveton Park Primary Care Centre had blatantly lied to the ICO in 2002/3 about them having amended my medical records at that time in accordance with the ICO’s advice.

It is also blatantly obvious that the PHSO’s Office have now blatantly covered-up the fact that the doctors at the KPPCC have lied, and have whitewashed over the whole matter to the benefit of the medics at the KPPCC. It’s a continuation of the NHS cover-up culture and Dame Julie Mellor is no different to those who went before her by her doing this. She’s another sham extracting a high rate of pay from the tax-payers’ purse! Maybe they should call her “Shame Julie Mellor”.

Now, what you have to bear in mind is that Mr Barron MP has being overseeing and supporting my case against the various NHS Departments for the way they have treated me, or not treated me as the case might be, since 1998 when at that time he suggested I make my own application for disclosure of Medical Records from the Bassetlaw Hospital (the missing Bassetlaw Hospital x-rays of my Right knee) into the Worksop court.

See copied below article (dated 2005) taken from our Local Newspaper:



PARLIAMENT'S top watchdog has stepped into a six-year battle for damages against a hospital by one of his own constituents. Rother Valley MP Kevin Barron—chairman of the House of Commons Health Select Committee—has written to hospital bosses to settle long running claims made by Monica Barnes, Mrs Barnes, of Pine Avenue, South Anston, has claimed since 1999 that Bassetlaw Hospital was negligent over a foreign body in her right knee.

Her husband has championed her campaign for justice and successfully won a judgement in Sheffield County Court in September. As the case seemed likely to drag on to further hearings, Mr Barron wrote to the chief executive of Doncaster and Bassetlaw NHS Foundation Trust urging an early settlement, Mr Barron said: "I am in the process of assisting Mrs Barnes in getting a solicitor to represent her with her case if it goes to a further hearing. I believe this case has gone on for far too long and I wonder, in view of the contents of the judgement, if a quick solution can be brought to this matter”.

He calls for an amicable settlement so that all parties can be protected from further years of legal quarrel". The Trust has denied there being any foreign body or calcification in Mrs Barnes' right knee, although the couple claimed it was seen in medical films dating back to 1988.

Four years ago, Mr Barron wrote to the Chief Constable of Nottinghamshire
Police asking him to look into the claims that staff at Bassetlaw Hospital tampered with Mrs Barnes’ records. Doncaster and Bassetlaw Hospitals
NHS Trust said at the time that the claims of Mr and Mrs Barnes were without merit. A trust spokeswoman said: "We never comment on a case that is before the courts."

I allege that due to all the solicitors (about 14 and I can name them all) that have taken instruction on my claims against the NHS being bent, the back coving culture by medics, the courts, judges, and Government funded bodies have cost the taxpayer many times more than if they had paid me out at the onset.

One solicitor in Nottingham, who had been helping me for over 10-years under the LSC Help & Advice Scheme at times when I was representing myself in court, since my 60th birthday (9 January 9 2003)  must have cost the taxpayer tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of pounds!

In September 2005 HHJ Moore instructed Bassetlaw Hospital’s solicitor, Mr Perry of Browne Jacobson, to get me paid out and he had the Court Clerk hand us all the court files back. I subsequently served a Part 36 offer (which had been calculated with the assistance of Mr Barron MP) on NHSLA’s solicitors but all they did was to acknowledge receipt of same without making me an offer of settlement.

When the case came back before the court HHJ Moore told the court that he had changed his mind, and he dismissed the case. The Court Office at Barnsley had advised me that HHJ Moore should not have given me and the Hospital’s solicitor the court files back, and so I returned them to the court. I allege that by HHJ Moore handing the files back to us and the hospital’s solicitor at the September 2005 Hearing in Sheffield, shows that he didn't want any signs of corruption seen in the files in his court. However, I still have comprehensive copies of all my case files.

This true story continues …….

NB: All copyrights reserved