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……