31 January 2013

Hello again, it’s me, Peggy

Here is another update in my true story of how patients are treated by medics and solicitors when litigation is brought against a colleague of theirs. Not only are you mal-treated by medics but they are assisted by solicitors and the system, thereby allowing the legal profession to fill their greedy pockets.

On perusing the vast amount of files on my case it makes me shudder to think of what they have all done to me, and could and/or have done to you one way or another if you have pursued litigation against any member of the medical profession. It works the same way with solicitors in 99.9 cases out of 100, and lands up with the legal profession coming out of the process with many times more than the claimant, and that’s if the claimant comes out of it with anything.

Another true incident, one that I overheard whilst waiting in court for my own case to be heard when I was acting as Litigant in Person. Two Barristers was sat talking just behind me, and I overheard the Defendant’s Barrister say to the Claimant’s Barrister; “My client (The Defendant) is willing to settle this case by offering your client £175K”. The Barrister for the Claimant retorted, “Oh, don’t do that, I can get her to settle for a lot less than that”. British Justice, I don’t think so!!!

In this next section I want to show you what happened with the applications made to the Legal Services Commission for funding my case, and how my solicitor, Jonathon Brain at Mills Kemp & Brown Solicitors in Barnsley conspired with solicitor Carolyn Smiley at the Legal Services Commission to divert my mail, as intended for my information from the LSC, to C/o Mills Kemp & Brown Solicitors, to prevent my knowing that my funding certificate was LIVE and had been up-graded from Investigative Help to "FULL REPRESENTATION".

The reference number for funding by the LSC IN 2004 was DUORNAYY1943/A/W/8. You can see from the document copied below that the letter from the Legal Services Commission dated 18/5/2004 addressed to me C/o Mills Kemp & Brown … and thanking me for telling them about my change of address to, who else but; Yes, “Mills Kemp & Brown” was actually done under the guise of an abandoned LSC reference number, that of DUORNAYY1943/A/W/12. Now that surely has to be a case of FRAUD, with intent to pervert the course of justice!

Of course, I never received that letter because it went direct to Mills Kemp & Brown Solicitors. I discovered it sometime later when I requested to view the MKB files with a view of having certain documents copied. I could not believe my eyes when I saw it because Mr Brain was supposed to working in my interest and was being paid handsomely by the LSC for so doing.

See below copies of the relevant letters showing what I say hear is true:

                

 

See copy of the subsequent Funding Certificate itself and copied below, as sent onto Mills Kemp & Brown. It is dated 07.06.2004 and on that date it had been upgraded from Investigative Help to "FULL REPRESENTATION" You can also see that they have reverted back to the correct reference number of DURNAYY1943/A/W/8. You can also see that they have reverted back to the correct reference number of DURNAYY1943/A/W/8. You can also see that Mr M Zeraati was a named opponent in my case yet Mr Brain went on to draw up a Witness Statement for Mr M Zeraati (Under a fictitious Court Reference number) and this while he was being funded by the LSC. Now, that surely has to be a criminal offence, what???



 

See below a copy of my letter of complaint to Mr Andy Grant (Regional Director) LSC London. Note my letter contains the correct LSC reference number:

On the 6^th August 2004 I received a letter dated 5^th August 2004 in what I consider to have been an ambiguous apology from LSC Manager Mr Peter Monaghan. You will see, however, that he says that in retrospect we now feel that this was an inappropriate step which we regret having taken. No good saying that when you’re caught-out is it, yuh Honour?? This was a fraudulent act and they still think they’ve got away with it. See copy of letter of apology copied below:

The next six pages (images) are copies of my complaint letter to the LSC, dated 6^th July 2006. I believe they tell their own story.







The above is only a very small extract taken from the LSC File and I intend returning to the LSC file later-on in this true story, together with the evidence mentioned in my complaint letter.

This true story continues …

NB: All copyrights reserved   

27^th January 2013

 

Hi again, it’s me, Peggy

 

My aim here is again to prove to you that the medics have been trying at all times to discredit me and refusing to treat me when them knowing at all times the true source of my problem.

 

I am now going to show you evidence that the bony lesion (as removed from my Right knee on 22/11/2002) was actually in my knee in 1988. This being the case after it was left in my knee during the operation to remove my patella (kneecap) in September 1987.

 

See copied below an extract taken from my Medical Records at the Rotherham District General Hospital. In the Clinic Note for October 1988 you can see that it states that I had informed the consultant of my knee gave way (it felt unstable) and my knee locked occasionally. Whenever my knee locked I had problems with straightening my painful Right leg after such an occurrence.

 

It is written in the Clinic Notes for ??/10/88 see below:

 

 

Below is an extract taken from a book on Orthopaedic Trauma, Injuries of the knee joint 5^th Edition (Library Ref: WE870 (s) photocopies were obtained from the Sheffield Northern General Hospital library. You will see from reading the extract that a piece of bone shears off either the patella or the tibia when the patient suffers recurrent dislocation of the patella, as was the case in my case!

 

Page 302

MEDIAL ASPECT PATELLA

M E D I A L TANGENTIAL

OSTEOCHONDRAL F R A C T I R E

(ENDOGENOUS)

 

This fracture (Kroner, 1905} in acute form is a common and important complication of traumatic dislocation (see Ch. 2).

 

Pathological anatomy. In the course of dislocation the quadriceps contracting in an attempt to recover the situation, exerts considerable compression force which, as the patella passes over the margin of the lateral condyle. shears off a portion of the articular cartilage together with a wedge-shaped fragment of the underlying canellous tissue from the inframedial margin of the articular surface (Figs 10.24 to 10.2" Sometimes it is the margin of the condyle and occasionally both margin of patella and margin of femur are fractured (Figs 2.SO to 2.S3).

 

This fracture of the patella differs from the lateral marginal fracture in the absence of splinting by soft tissue. The fragment is therefore displaced into the joint immediately or is cast into the synovial cavity as a loose body of mysterious origin at a later date.

 

Clinical features. In acute form as a complication of a traumatic dislocation which has been reduced it is difficult, if not impossible, to diagnose on clinical examination: only suspected.

It may not be seen in antero-posterior and lateral radiographs; and the painful knee cannot be flexed to obtain "skyline" views. This is why exploration is indicated in such cases. (Ch. 2).

 

In the form complicating recurrent dislocation its presence in axial radiograph is useful confirmative evidence of the diagnosis (Figs 10.24 to 10.27). The fracture rarely exists as a separate entity. The clinical features are those of the condition it complicates. Sometimes retro-patella symptoms and tenderness located to the medial aspect may be the presenting features. Occasionally locking produced by a loose body, the site origin of which may not be immediately evident, is the first incident which calls attention to a recurrent dislocation.

 

Treatment: At the exploratory operation for traumatic dislocation a large defect is repaired (Fig 10.28 to 10.31).  Experience at the second operation to remove the means of internal fixation shows that the restoration indistinguishable from normal can be attained. If the fragment is small it is removed and the margins of the defect smoothed as occasion demands………………

 

On the 9^th of January 1990 at the time I was admitted to the Sheffield Northern General Hospital with my knee locked in a bent position, Mr Saleh (Orthopaedic Surgeon) brutally straitened my very painful leg without first administering any pain killers or pain-killing injection. It was nothing less than torture. It had been arranged for this to be done in theatre under a general anaesthetic but when Mr Saleh had read through my notes and saw that there was pending litigation against Mr Majumdar, a colleague of his, I allege that this was his way of paying me back.

 

However, this no less than brutal action by Mr Saleh had actually propelled the bony lesion out of the knee joint and into soft tissues in the medial aspects of my knee, and it remained there until it was removed in November 2002, some 12-years later.

 

I did have x-rays taken of my Right knee on arrival at SNGH A/E on 9/1/1990, and my medical records as held at the Sheffield Northern General Hospital (Now Sheffield Teaching Hospital Trust) record this fact. However, when I sought disclosure of my medical records and they failed to disclose my x-rays them at the SNGH contended that no x-rays were taken of my knee on 9/1/1990. A letter from Chief Executive Mr Andrew Cash wrote to me directly saying that x-rays were not taken of my knee on the attendance at his hospital on 9/1/1990 yet it states in my medical records “Radio-logically” there is no bony injury. That proves x-rays were taken but I was being denied them.

 

When I sought copies of my knee x-rays as taken at Newmarket General Hospital on 28/11/1989, they wrote back to me saying they had been destroyed. I allege that the bony lesion, in accordance with the recurrent dislocation of the patella, had been propelled into the knee joint and x-rays dated 28/11/1989 and 9/1/1990 would have proved that to be the case beyond a shadow of doubt.

 

The x-rays that were taken at the Bassetlaw Hospital on 19/08/1991 (those I have in my possession) show that bony lesion to be situated on the medial aspects of my Right knee.

 

I approached Mr Kieran Colton in January 1997, the then Medical Records Manager, at the Bassetlaw Hospital and explained that Mr Zeraati, the Orthopaedic Surgeon at the Bassetlaw had identified a 19/08/91 LAT VIEW x-ray of my Right knee and the bony lesion that could be clearly seen on the medial aspects of my knee in that film and I asked him to keep it safe as my x-rays had a habit of going missing. Mr Colton confirmed that he would. Subsequently those at the Bassetlaw Hospital denied that that particular x-ray had existed.

 

At a meeting with Mr Colton and when discussing that I was not able to get treatment, he advised me that I would not be able to obtain treatment for my knee because I was on “Patient Tracking”. Whatever that means?

 

Mr Colton, at the time Mills Kemp & Brown Solicitors were instructed on my Clinical Negligence case did deliver-up to MKB (eventually and after months of wrangling) the original x-rays dated 19/08/1991. However, in a recorded meeting, with Solicitor Mr J Brain at MKB, Mr Brain told me that Mr Colton had specifically ordered Mr Brain not to let Mrs Barnes have sight of those x-rays. Why not???

 

In late 2005 I had requested the return of my x-rays and MRI scans that I had loaned to MKB whilst they had conduct of my case together with those that had been obtained from the various hospitals whilst pursuing my case. I was refused the return of those films by MKB. However, In December 2005 (and I have this fact in a sound recording and also in a copy letter dated 15/12/2005) that Mr Nigel Clifton (the then Chief Executive) at Bassetlaw Hospital, himself requested of Mr Brain at MKB Solicitors that he send my x-rays to him direct. This Mr Brain did, including x-rays and MRI scans that I had obtained and paid for myself. The MRI and scans had cost me around £900.00 at the time of me having the scans done in February 1998.

 

I made an application to the Sheffield Combined Court to have my x-rays returned to me from the Bassetlaw Hospital but the Court refused to make an Order to have those films returned to me. Strange, very strange, what??

 

The act of Mr Brain of MKB disclosing my personal data (in the form of x-rays, those I had obtained from the various hospitals where I had sought treatment) without first obtaining my consent (which I most certainly would NOT have given him) was in fact a Breach of confidentiality and of the Data Protection Act.    

 

This true story continues …… watch this space

 

 

Hi, it’s me again, Peggy

 

I’ve been wondering what I ought to be telling you about next but first I will show you that there is further evidence in the Bassetlaw Hospital medical records file proving that I did in fact have x-rays taken when I attended the Bassetlaw Hospital on 19/7/1996.

 

The Clinician reported on the x-rays showing loose fragment (the bony lesion) over the medial aspect of the knee. This refers to my Right knee. Bassetlaw Hospital has always contended that there were no x-rays taken at their hospital on 19/7/1996 but this proves that they were taken. The Clinic Note also goes onto say “x-rays for reporting” so this is another factor. It was confirmed at the meeting held at Bassetlaw HQ on 9/6/1998 that it was the policy at the Bassetlaw Hospital not to report on x-rays from any other hospital; they were classed as “Foreign Films”. See copy of the Bassetlaw Hospital19/7/1996 clinic note below.

Can anyone out there tell me of any hospital where you have attended, suffering from a suspected fracture, and they send you out in a plaster cast without first taking x-rays. I don’t think so.

 

Next, I think, should be about the so-called medical experts as instructed by solicitors. The following couple of paragraphs refer to Court Rules.

 

It states at Section 5 of the Court Rules Guide at 4.8:

 

It is the duties of a medical expert to help the court on matters within his or her expertise: This duty overrides any obligation to the person from whom the expert has received instructions or by whom he or she has been paid (rule35.3).

 

At 4.9: it states; In fulfilment of this duty, an expert must for instance make it clear if a particular question or issue falls outside his or her expertise or he or she considers that insufficient data is available on which to express an opinion. Any material change of view by an expert should be communicated in writing (through legal representatives) then other parties without delay.

 

I mention this here because solicitor Mr Jonathan Brain had my clinical negligence case from year 2002, and when it came to instructing a medical expert he instructed a Professor Galasko from Manchester. Professor Galasko advised Mr Brain that he would not be prepared to take instruction if Professor Dandy, a friend of his was to be involved in my case for any reason. Galasko had been provided with the background of my case so he was aware of Dandy’s involvement.

 

I had drawn to Mr Brain’s attention that Professor Dandy had been accused by me as being a medic who had closed rank and refused to treat me further in 1990, after he had become aware of pending litigation against Mr Majumdar, a colleague of his. Dandy had at that time accused me of having a mind problem not a knee problem and had referred me back to the care of my then GP. Mr Brain at Mills Kemp & Brown Solicitors went on to instruct Galasko even though I had protested strongly against him so doing.

 

Galasko went on to make his expert reports for the court in year 2003, at a cost of over £7,000.00 of Legal Aid funding for his services. However, in his report Galasko had made many factual mistakes, I allege wilful errors, relating to dates that particular x-rays had been taken. I allege that this was done by Galasko with intent to mislead the court, and of when and by what date the bony lesion (so-called calcified nodule) could be seen in particular x-rays of my Right knee.

 

He also went on in a further report for the court to give expert opinion on matters outside his expertise. In one report prepared for the court he stated that he was not qualified in Guanethidine Pain-Block injections yet he went on in his report to give his expert opinion on Guanethidine Pain-Block injections. Can you believe that?

 

I did file his report with the court and these facts were brought to the judge’s attention. I could not believe the judge allowed Galasko’s report to stand when blatantly flying in the face of court rules. I also requested of Mr Galasko, through the court, that he amends his report to correct the factual errors that had been discovered. He argued with me in court that if he were to amend his report it would cost me a further £2,000.00. What, to correct the areas in his report where he had actually made FACTUAL ERRORS at a cost of in excess of £7,000.00? I could not believe it when the judge (in Sheffield Combined Court) ruled that I would have to pay Galasko a further fee £2,000.00, for correcting his blatant mistakes.

 

In normal circumstances one would not normally be aware of the aforementioned errors being relevant regarding him placing x-rays in his report out of the correct order when reporting the history of events. What they did not realise was, however, that I did have x-rays taken in 1992 commissioned by a Mr Harris, a previously instructed medical expert in Harley Street in the case brought against Mr Majumdar.

 

Mr Harris wrote to me in a letter dated 25 February 1998. He confirmed that the one or more loose bodies (bony lesion) as reported seen over the medial aspect of my Right knee x-ray, by Radiologist Dr Mourad in 1992, were the same loose bodies as seen in the 19/08/1991 Bassetlaw x-rays and the same as reported seen in x-rays of my Right knee in 19/7/96. 

 

On 29^th March 2006 I attended a consultation with a Mr Nigel Tubbs, the medical expert instructed by the Trust’s solicitors. This was at the Nuffield Hospital in Edgbaston, Birmingham for the purpose of Tubbs examining me for assessing Condition, Prognosis, Liability & Causation Report for the court.

 

I subsequently discovered that he had made a preliminary report in December 2002 but I have since been refused sight of that Report when requested under the Freedom of Information Act, by the Trust’s solicitors, NHSLA, and Information Commissioner’s Office. The reason for wanting sight of Tubbs’ Preliminary Report was because until I saw him for the examination in March 2003, he was not aware that his friend, Professor Galasko, had prepared reports for the court in 2003. Galasko had reported on the bony lesion, as been seen as a “Fluffy Calcification” in the films of 1991. I took it from his stance thereafter, that he had changed his mind somewhat and altered his original opinion on my case, and I have already proven medics close rank and back colleagues, in clinical negligence cases.

 

It is my understanding that anything/document that bears my name can be accessed and disclosed to me under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, especially when the document/s are held by a Government body such as the NHSLA.

 

This case continues……

Hello again, it’s me, Peggy

 

I think its time I gave you a bit of evidence here to show you just what I’ve been up against with the medical profession. As I’ve said earlier, once they became aware that there was pending litigation against one of their colleagues they closed ranks.

 

You will have to bear with me on the way I have inserted the various images and the amount of distance seen between an image and the attached text. I am 70 and very new at blogging.

 

My GP had referred me onto Mr Elson in Sheffield and subsequently onto Mr Hunter at the Bassetlaw Hospital. See copied below an extract taken from the GP’s Lloyd George medical records card as held at the Woodsetts Surgery Nr Worksop. Just take a look at the entry made on 6/7/90 by my then GP Dr Haldar, where she has written “Reg Elson wont take it on. – Mr Hunter – he says “No Thanks”. Can an Orthopaedic Surgeon refuse a GP referral under the NHS???

 

Now, is that discrimination or what??? 

 

 

 

 

 

 So as you know what I am talking about when I say it was a bony lesion, take a look at the Right hand side of the x-ray copied below which is a 26 July 1996 x-ray of my Right knee. I have ringed the bony lesion which is termed as been in the medial aspects of my Right knee. I have also copied below a scanned image of the bony lesion as was removed from my Right knee.

 

According to the Medical Dictionary Medial, when referring to knees, means the side of the knee nearest to the other knee.

 

I also have a copy of the Attendance Note made by Solicitor Miss K Bhogal of Beachcroft Wansbroughs Solicitors of a meeting held on at the Bassetlaw Hospital on 9^th June1998 where Radiologist Dr Howard told all those at the meeting that Mr Barnes had got the meaning of the word “Medial” wrong, as Medial meant inside the knee joint, and there were loose fragments in the medial aspect she said but they were inside the knee joint.

 

Dr Howard, at the meeting termed the bony lesion as an “Opaque Opacity” she also referred to it as a piece of bone. Mr Zeraati in 1996 first said it was a foreign body but went on to referrer to it as a calcified nodule in his report. Professor Galasko, to whom I will refer to in detail later, referred to it in his report as a “fluffy calcification” but at a consultation with Dr Renshaw (Him that inappropriately and negligently injected a Guanethidine Pain-Block injection directly into my Right foot, as opposed to a vein, in 1993) told me that it was not foreign to me as it was a piece of bone. 

 

Mr Andrew Sweeny, Physiotherapist at the Rotherham Physiotherapy Centre, did say when reviewing the 1991 x-rays against the x-ray reports, that the Bas****s have turned it. Meaning the left knee report had been swapped for that of the Right knee Report.

 

You will see from Miss KK Bhogal’s Attendance Note copied below that there was reference to “no metal” and there being “no clips”. It had been a RED HERRING by Mr Saleh at the Sheffield Northern General who had said the signal voids seen in an MRI scan of my Right knee could be a metal clip that had been left in my knee, and he went on to draw me the shape  of a staple as they sometimes use in knee operations. There had been reference to evidence of “Screw Fixation” in a MRI Report of my Right knee in 1998.

 

Copied below is the bony lesion that was removed from my Right knee by Mr Bickerstaff (Orthopaedic Surgeon) at the Thornbury Hospital on 22 November 2002. It measures approximately 2cms across its widest part.

See copied below a true extract taken from Solicitor Bhogal’s Report of the meeting of 9^th June 1998 where Radiologist Dr Howard contradicts our correct understanding of the word medial.

See also copied below the x-ray report for the x-rays taken of both my knees in 19/08/1991 and you can see the date it was received at the GP Practice (22/08/1991) where Dr Haldar has written “No further action required”.

 

Note also that there is no Patella (kneecap) present in the 1996 x-ray. The kneecap had been removed in the operation on my Right knee in 1987, yet you can see there was no mention of this in the x-ray Report dated 20/08/1991 as copied below. I believe the 1991 report for my Left knee is actually the Report for my Right knee, and they could not report on the patella been absent because to do so would have shown what they had done.

 

I have been informed that Radiologists always report on LEFT then RIGHT and this is standard practice. Mr Bourne, Health Sector at the ICO, did say in a letter, one copied to me, that even from the semantics of the report he believed Mrs Barnes had a case. For instance, how could the radiologist start the report by reporting “Identical changes are present” when the Left knee report preceded the Right knee report? It’s not semantically correct.    

 

Had the medics not closed Rank and advised me of it being a bony lesion left in my knee from my having suffered recurrent dislocation of my knee in earlier years and that Mr Majumdar had failed to recognise this fact when he operated and removed my patella in 1987, then I would not have been denied a far better quality of life since my having that operation. Neither would I have had to suffer the trauma nor the endless sleepless nights by going through unnecessary court cases.

 

In our Local Newspaper it did quote Mr Nigel Clifton (the then Chief Executive of Bassetlaw Hospital) as saying he fought clinical negligence cases vigorously. My now knowing what has happened in my case I interpret that as meaning even by them going to the extent of denying medical records and/or destroying x-rays. When I’ve discussed this with other claimants they have apparently come-up against the same problem in their cases.

 

 

 

You can see for yourselves, from the 26 July 1996 X-ray shown above, that it shows the bony lesion very clearly in the Medial aspects of my Right knee, and you can also see for yourselves that the X-ray Report (as copied below) for the above 26 July 1996 X-ray where Dr C R Merrill Reports on there been no change to the knee since the films of 1991. This proves the bony lesion was in my Right knee in 1991 because it is reported as been seen in my knee in the films of 1996, yet the image remains unaltered since the films of 1991.

 

 

 

 

 

I will be putting more info on this blog within the next few days. Watch this space!!

nhs complaints

Hello again it’s me, Peggy

 

More here on my true story:

 

Bassetlaw Hospital Radiology Department 19 August 1991: to have x-rays taken of my Right knee.

 

I attended the Radiology Department whereupon they first took 3 x-rays. One x-ray plate was of both my knees together (AP View) and then two single plates showing my left knee and my Right knee separately (LAT View) x-rays.

 

They asked to wait in the waiting area, as they do, to wait and see if the x-rays had processed properly. A few minutes later I was re-called to have another x-ray taken (a LAT View) of my Right knee. I thought at the time that they had taken the x-ray from a slightly different angle but I have since discovered that if radiographers discover, from an x-ray, as they just had in my case, that something in the knee area had not clearly shown, I’ve been told they use a different exposure rate when taking a further x-ray. This 2^nd LAT View x-ray became known as the “4” x-ray of 19/08/91.

 

Over the ongoing weeks I contacted my GP several times but she denied having received my results from the Bassetlaw Hospital. When I eventually saw her she read the report to herself and simply said that there was nothing untoward and therefore nothing further that they could do other than prescribe pain-killers.

 

In December 1991 I saw a Locum GP. He read-out the report relating to my Right knee x-ray. He mentioned my Right knee x-ray reporting as the x-ray showing one or more loose bodies in the medial aspect of my knee. He said; “Strictly off the Record”, that there was something that could be done for my knee problem. I put this to my then solicitors at Irwin Mitchell Solicitors but I will come back to talking about them later.

 

It was July 1993 before I first set eyes on the 4^th LAT View x-ray. It was at the Dukeries Clinic in Worksop but Orthopaedic Surgeon Mr Verinder made no mention of the image that could be seen in what I know now to be the medial aspect of my Right knee in the x-ray he had on his illuminated panel. He diagnosed me as suffering from the controversial diagnosis RSD.

 

It was 5^th November 1996 when I saw a Mr Zeraati at the Bassetlaw Hospital after having a fall and attending the Grimsby Hospital where they had taken x-rays of my Right knee in July 1996 and referred me back to the Bassetlaw Hospital, where I had further x-rays done. When I walked into his consulting room Mr Zeraati had already put a July 1996 LAT View x-ray of my Right knee on his illuminated display panel. He said; “Are you aware that you have a foreign body in your Right knee Mrs Barnes”.

 

He identified the image in the x-ray which I had seen previously on the medial aspect of my Right knee in the 1991 x-ray, when in Verinder’s office in 1993. He selected another LAT View x-ray of my Right knee from his desktop and put that on his display and at the same time saying “it was there in 1991 look”. Both I and my husband told him that we had seen that very same x-ray in 1993 when in Verinder’s Office but Mr Verinder had not considered or advised me of the image that could be seen on the medial aspect of my Right knee in that x-ray.

 

I subsequently made an application to the Bassetlaw Hospital via Kate Patterson Solicitors for copies of my x-rays but they failed to copy and send that specific 19/8/1991 x-ray.

My husband attended the Bassetlaw Hospital on 3/12/1997 where he identified that specific x-ray (and the bony lesion seen on the medial aspect of my Right knee in that film) to Pat Hewitt, the then Medical Records Clerk and Mrs Carol Perry, Grade 2 Radiographer. They told him that they were unable to copy the film while he waited because the x-ray copying machine had just broken down. A likely story, what!! When he returned the next day (after receiving a telephone call from the hospital) they denied that the Right knee LAT View x-ray (which he had identified to the two hospital staff just the previous day) and dated 19/08/1991, had ever existed.

 

The then Medical Records Manager, Mr Kieran Colton, was called to the interview, where he told my husband that he was not saying it had not existed but that it was up to my husband to prove that it had.

 

The x-ray report for the 19/08/1991 x-rays was obtained from the Bassetlaw Hospital and the one or more loose bodies as mentioned been seen on the medial aspect of my knee had been reported as been in my left knee as opposed to my Right knee. I alleged that the report for the x-ray of my left knee was actually the report for my Right knee. It was also noted that the report for my Right knee made no mention of the absence of the patella which had been removed from my Right knee in 1987, and this was a significant factor because the x-ray Request Form requested x-rays of both knees for comparison.

 

I forwarded the Report onto a Mr Ian Bourne at the Information Commissioner’s office. In a letter copied to me he wrote that he believed if only from the semantics     of the report he believed Mrs Barnes had a case.

 

Mr Zeraati (Orthopaedic Surgeon) was asked by me to confirm that he had indeed identified that specific 19/08/1991 x-ray to us, and the image of the bony lesion seen in that film, when we attended his consulting rooms at the Bassetlaw Hospital on 5^th November 1996, and he said it was more than his job was worth.

 

This true story continues ……