28th May 2013 [blog
No. 26]
Hello again, it’s me, Peggy
Firstly, I
would like to thank the firm of solicitors who left this comment on my last
blog saying; “As medical law solicitors we sadly see this type of thing every day.
Keep up sharing your experience and the disgraceful service provided by the NHS”.
I will be
continuing with my blogs because I was crippled by the medical profession at
the age of 45-years. I spent the first ten years after the operation on my
Right knee walking with the aid of sticks and/or crutches but for the last
fifteen years I have been left walking with the aid of crutches permanently,
and I have been told I will have to do this for the rest of my life. Sometimes
I have to revert to using either my wheelchair or motorised disability scooter.
I reiterate
here, Mr Paul Cooke, Orthopaedic Consultant in Oxford (in May 2009) told me the problem should have
been dealt with fifteen years ago, which was at the time I had the botched
Guanethidine Pain-Block injection which was injected directly into my right
foot, as opposed to a vein, in November 1993. In December 2008 I was advised
that the Guanethidine should not have been injected into my foot, for the pain
in my knee, in any event.
When I attended
a physiotherapy session in Rotherham the physiotherapist told me that all the physiotherapy
in the world would not put right what is wrong with my right foot. In 2010 a physiotherapist
in Nottingham asked me what I was hoping to achieve, and when I said I wanted
to walk without the aid of crutches she said I’m sorry Mrs Barnes that’s never
going to happen.
I allege that the state I have been left in and the poor quality of life
is the direct result of a cover-up by the medical profession, since being
transferred to the care of the NHS for treatment of the botched operation on my
right knee in May 1988.
When referring me for treatment Medics have always referred to
litigation issues, court case etc in letters of referral and subsequently, as
you will see from my last blog, Mr Andy Buck, Chief Executive, Rotherham NHS
Primary Care Trust, in his letter to our MP dated 10 March 2011, confirmed that
the reason for it taking the Kiveton Park Practice so long (Nov 2010 to March
2011) in returning my medical records back to my new GP was that they found
amending Mrs Barnes medical records had been an onerous task. This proves
beyond a shadow of doubt that the Kiveton Park Practice had not heeded the
ICO’s advice back in 2002/03 and had continued to refer to court case and
litigation issues in letters of referral, and the reason for me being denied
treatment. I allege that by the Kiveton Park Group Practice sending my medical
records to my new GP un-amended was done willfully by them in a bid to inform
my new GP of past litigation issues with intent to continue the cover-up.
I’m still reviewing my files
relating to 1993 when my then GP was Dr
Mrs Gita Halder, who’s Practice was Woodsetts Surgery, 2a Berne Square,
Woodsetts, Worksop. She had referred me onto Mr Verinder, Consultant Orthopaedic
Surgeon, at the Dukeries Clinic in Worksop. I saw him as a Private paying
patient. You can see from the fifth line down in his letter of response to Dr
Haldar (copied below) that he refers to litigation.
When I attended Mr Verinder’s
Clinic in July 1993 he had a copy of the (Now non-existent) Bassetlaw Hospital 19/08/91
LAT View X-ray of my Right knee on his eliminated display panel but he never
considered or discussed the image (a bony lesion) that was clearly visible on what
we now know to be on the Medial Aspects of my knee. We were only in his consulting
room for about ten minutes and he quickly (and incorrectly) diagnosed my knee
pain as being due to RSD, and he referred me onto a Dr Renshaw at the same
Clinic for Pain Management.
I subsequently discovered that RSD
was a controversial diagnosis. I was advised by one solicitor in Sheffield that
he’d come across cases where RSD was diagnosed when either the consultant did
not know the true diagnosis or when they did not want the patient to know the
true diagnosis.
In any event, when referring me
onto Dr David Renshaw for pain management treatment (as a Private Paying Patient|)
you can see from Dr Renshaw’s letter of reply (21/7/1993) to Mr Verinder, that
Dr Renshaw thanks Mr Verinder for his detailed history, that, he says, he will
not repeat. See first paragraph of the letter copied below.
Dr Renshaw referred me onto
himself at the Bassetlaw Hospital for pain management treatment. It was he that
injected the inappropriate Guanethidine Pain-Block injection directly into my
Right foot, as opposed to a vein, in November 1993, instead of him advising me that
I had a bony lesion situated on the medial aspects of my Right knee and seen in
Bassetlaw Hospital LAT View x-ray of my Right knee dated 19/08/91.
When Dr Renshaw became aware of my
seeing the said 19/08/91 LAT View x-ray, in 1996, at the time when Mr Zeraati
(Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon at Bassetlaw Hospital) and that Mr Zeraati had
advised me that I had a foreign body in my Right knee, Dr Renshaw went on to
advise me that it was not foreign to me as it was a piece of bone. He had known
all the time what the problem actually was, so why did he not advise me of that
back in November 1993 instead of giving me the botched Guanethidine Pain-Block injection,
which, according to advice received in 2008, should have gone into my knee as
opposed to my foot in any event.
You can see from the comments
made in these letters dated 1993 just how long I have been discriminated
against and that is not taking into account the letter from Professor Dandy to Dr
Gita Haldar dated May 1990, where he returned me back to the care of my GP
recommending I see a psychiatrist.
In a Report dated 10th
November 1998 by Mr Nigel Anderson, solicitor and also a Deputy Coroner, as
made for the Office of Supervision of Solicitors in a case intended against
Irwin Mitchell solicitors, Mr Anderson said, and I quote the following from his
report;
5th
paragraph of his report: "It is obvious to me that a number of
doctors that have seen Mrs Barnes have shown no interest in her problem or have
been generally hostile to her as soon as they found out that there has been a
claim against a colleague of theirs".
In the
5th paragraph he goes onto say, and I quote; "... I have never seen
such hostility before as is contained in some of the correspondence from the
medical profession. By that I am judging their hostility by the contents of the
letters that they have sent to each other and the problem that Mrs Barnes has
clearly had getting straight answers from them. Therein lies the problem".
This true story continues …….
NB: All copyrights reserved
NB: All copyrights reserved