23^rd June 2013 [blog No. 29]

Hello again, it’s me, Peggy
Covering-up mistakes in our NHS is now in the media on a daily basis, and yet I've been trying to expose cover-ups in my clinical negligence case since I was crippled by Orthopaedic Surgeon Pratiff Majumdar in 1987.

I reiterate again here; and as you can see from my previous blogs, I allege I was crippled further in my Right foot in November 1993 at the Bassetlaw Hospital by Dr Renshaw when he administered the Guanethidine Pain-Block injection directly into my Right foot, as opposed to a vein.

I allege the injection was both inappropriate and negligently administered and according to advice received from an expert in Guanethidine Injections (in 2008) it should not have been injected into my foot for the pain in my knee in any event.

Before I embark on what happened with my case when Mr Brain of Mills Kemp & Brown Solicitors had conduct of my case from 2001, I want to refer you to a letter to my husband dated 8 July 1998 as received from Jonathan Asbridge (Acting Chief Executive) at the Royal London Hospital. At the item marked No. 4 in his letter he confirms that x-rays show a piece of bone on the medial side of my knee. It’s not a foreign body, he said, and neither did he refer to it as a foreign or calcified body.

In 1998 Mr John King at the Royal London Hospital was prepared to operate on my knee to remove this piece of bone but once he became aware of the pending litigation against the Bassetlaw Hospital he told me that I would have to learn to walk on my hands. Meaning before anyone would help me. He was covering-up the backs of his colleagues, including the back of Prof. Dandy who, according to Zeraati, “had missed the bugger” (bony lesion) during his exploratory operation on my Right knee in November 1989.

Dr Renshaw at the Bassetlaw Hospital had referred to it as being a piece of bone, when at a meeting in 1996 but that was only after he had become aware of Mr Zeraati having shown it to me in the 19/08/1991 Bassetlaw Hospital x-ray. However, Renshaw conveniently failed to report it as such in his clinic notes.

They had always diagnosed my Right knee pain as been due to the controversial diagnosis RSD to prevent me having a case against the NHS. Since my having the botched Guanethidine injection put into my foot in November 1993 they’ve subsequently diagnosed the resulting crippling pain (osteoporosis) in my foot as again being due to  RSD. They just never give up!

According to Mr Paul Cooke, Orthopaedic Surgeon at the Nuffield Hospital in Oxford (in May 2009) due to the problem relating back as far as 1993 (the Guanethidine Injection) there is nothing that can be done now, it should have been dealt with much earlier.

Now, MKB:

I first instructed Mills Kemp & Brown Solicitors in 2001 on the alleged clinical negligence claim for the botched Guanethidine Injection put into my foot in 1993 which was gradually crippling me with severe pain in my Right foot. The case took quite some time to kick-off so to speak, and it was not until around November 2001 that Mr Brain actually got around to seeking disclosure of my medical records.

Mr Barron MP met with Mr Brain at Mills Kemp & Brown Solicitors on 22 November 2002, which was the day I had the bony lesion removed from my Right knee by Mr Bickerstaff at the Thornbury Private Hospital in Sheffield. The operation was paid for by the NHS. Mr Brain had always contented that the previous case against the Bassetlaw Hospital was passed and this new claim was for my Right foot problem. However, strangely, after his meeting with Mr Barron MP Mr Brain seemed intent on pursuing the previous claim regarding my knee problem?

For what it’s worth, I had been advised that the mere fact the NHS had paid for the removal of the bony lesion (which had been left in my Right knee since the operation to remove my patella in 1987) meant that they had accepted liability in my claim. However, as I’ve said, the claim I was actually bringing to MKB in 2001 was for the alleged negligence by the Bassetlaw Hospital regarding the maladministration of the Guanethidine Pain Block Injection.

I was referred by Mr Brain to a Professor Galasko (Expert Orthopaedic Surgeon) in Cheadle, Cheshire. I was not at all happy with the referral because Professor Galasko had informed Mr Brain that he was a friend and colleague of Professor Dandy, the surgeon who I had criticised for a substandard of care when at the Newmarket Hospital in 1989/90.


Furthermore, Professor Galasko confirmed to Mr Brain in his letter to Brain dated 11 December 2002 (See copy below) that he was not qualified in Guanethidine Pain-Block Injections. However, Mr Brain went ahead regardless of my protesting against the referral.

Mr Barron MP wrote to Mr Brain at MKB in a letter dated 23 December 2002 in support of my claim, albeit he inadvertently referred to it being an ankle problem. You will note that he suggested it going via a Judicial Review. See copy below.

When I met Professor Galasko on 1^st April 2003 he only had x-rays performed on my knee and he only paid attention to my knee problem, he disregarded my Right foot problem. I put this fact to Mr Brain in a subsequent letter.

When Professor Galasko made his report for the court he had only reported on my knee. He did not mention my Right foot problem. I had to return to Manchester for Galasko to make another report for the court on the administration of the Guanethidine Pain-Block injection in my Right foot.

In his report he informed the court that he was not qualified in the administration of Guanethidine Pain-Block injections. I contended that Professor Galasko should have categorically refused to make any such report due to his admission of not been qualified in that field of medicine and the fact he was a friend and colleague of one of the surgeons criticised in my case., and still further, that he was a member of the Professional Advisory Panel of the NHS Litigation Authority, who were the very same people I was suing. How’s that for a complete stitch-up!!

The reports made by Galasko contained many factual errors, and he had glossed-over the parts where Prof. Dandy had had any involvement in my treatment. I allege that I was well and truly stitched-up.

The cost of Galasko’s input was in excess of £7, 500, and he subsequently requested a further £2,000.00 if I wanted him to correct the factual errors contained within his reports. Strangely, in a subsequent court hearing where and when I had objected to his further costs the judge agreed with his request.

I reiterate here; now that Public Funding has been abolished by this Government for Clinical Negligence cases Litigants in person will not stand a cat in hells chance of obtaining justice!!! 

They've just given the medics a licence to lame and kill.

I have just received a copy of a letter addressed to the Rt. Hon Mr Kevin J Barron MP from a Government Quango where the content of that letter further shows hostility toward me, and which further depicts that I am certainly black-listed from having access to justice. Now, the head of the aforesaid government body came on Breakfast television just after she had been appointed, telling everyone she was going to be transparent in matters relating to the NHS. I can’t go into any further detail about this matter at this time because Mr Barron has agreed to deal with the matter himself, direct.

Before I sign-off I want to thank the editor@medneg.com for referring to my blog in his email on 19/6/2013 to his members, and also to my husband.

This true story continues …….

NB: All copyrights reserved   

16^th June 2013 [blog No. 28]

Hello again, it’s me, Peggy

For starters this week I want to tell you about the time Atteys of Doncaster had conduct of my case of alleged Professional Negligence against Gosschalks of Hull.

I see that the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) intervened in Atteys Firm of Solicitors in early March of this year and shut down the whole firm. Apparently, they’ve been wiped-out without a trace.

On the 6^th April 2013 I did request the return of the Atteys case files from the SRA and I sent them a completed Request Form on 9/4/2013. The SRA Intervention Archives Department responded via letter on 24^th April saying they were very busy with requests for files and that they would be in touch. Due to not hearing from them again I sent them a further letter via fax on 10^th June 2013 with Hard Copy post. I am still waiting to hear from them and for the return of my case files.

However, from what I saw on TV Monday June 10^th (BBC Panorama) about “Black Listing” I would say that I/we (my husband and I) have been blacklisted by both the Medical and also the Legal Profession due to my diligence in pursuing my claims. This “Black-Listing”  I allege, has also now spilled-over into the Government Departments, those that have handled the complaints I have brought against the various Medical and Legal bodies. I will go onto prove this to be the case at a later date, with letters from the various Government Departments showing their hostility towards me and their methods used in blocking me from obtaining successful outcomes from any of my complaints.

Back to Atteys and Gosschalks; Gosschalks had refused to attend the court hearing in Lincoln Combined Court in December 1999 after transferring my legal Aid Certificate into their name on 11^th November 1999. They eventually, I allege, after them milking the case and the Legal Aid Board as far as they could for 9-months, incorrectly and misleadingly advised the Legal Aid Board that they had obtained a negative Expert Medical Report from a Mr Wilkinson, an Orthopaedic Consultant in London.

I obtained all my case files from Gosschalks and was unable to find any Expert Medical Opinion/Report from Mr Wilkinson, negative or otherwise. I faxed Mr Wilkinson on 13^th December 2000 seeking a copy of his report, and in his response he told me that he had not made any medical report on my case nor had he given any opinion and he said that he did not receive any remuneration of any sort. He did say, however, that he had written to Gosschalks giving his reasons for not accepting their instruction on the matter. Albeit I put these facts to the Legal Services Commission no action was taken by them against Gosschalks for the alleged misrepresentation.

Gosschalks had public funding to obtain a medical report per specialism but they failed to obtain a Medial Report from an Orthopaedic Medical Expert or an Expert on Pain Management and they also further refused to represent me in court at the Hearing on 25 August 2000. They had, however, written to the Legal Aid Board in a letter dated 16^th August 2000 incorrectly informing the LAB that they had obtained negative expert medical opinion from Mr Wilkinson. I then had my Legal Aid Certificate revoked without giving me time to either “Reply to Show Cause” or obtain further Legal Representation prior to the then pending court hearing. I allege that I had been well and truly stitched-up by solicitor Tim Slow of Gosschalks.

I took my proposed Professional Negligence Claim against Gosschalks to Atteys of Doncaster in August 2008 but I allege that all they did was to milk the Legal Services Commission for 2½ years before obtaining a Barrister’s Advice on the matter; I allege they simply obtained an Advice with intent in them getting my public funding certificate revoked.

At a sound recorded meeting at Atteys Offices at a time when Barrister Hedley were present, solicitor Mr Sampson refused to take further instruction from me. He subsequently wrote to the Legal Services Commission incorrectly advising them that I had refused to give Atteys further instructions on my case, and my funding certificate was again revoked. I did lodge a complaint against Atteys to the Legal Services Commission quoting these facts.

I also put to them that in paragraph 80 of his advice Richard Hedley had referred to an Order made 18 July 2008 by DJ Kirkham where the Judge ordered the case be stayed, and Barrister Richard Hedley had gone on to say in paragraph 81 on page 26 of his advice; “In the context the whole principle of case management by the courts (which underpins the Civil Procedure Rules) I find that Order extremely odd. There is no apparent long-stop for review. The court seems to have been content that the claim was kicked into the long grass”. I allege that I had yet again been stitched-up, once again by the Judge.

I referred earlier to my having been “Blacklisted” and this is what I mean. Every time I bring either a case or a complaint to the authorities the case/complaint has been kicked into the long grass and I am prevented from obtaining a true and appropriate outcome. We are living in a cover-up culture where there is corruption from the top downwards. When I look through my case files and the way I been treated it reads like something out of a Dan Brown Novel.

I mentioned in blog number 3 and also in my last blog that Mr Iain Bourne (Health Sector) at the Information Commissioner’s Office had written to Mr Drake at the Health Service Ombudsman’s Office advising him that even if just from the semantics of the Bassetlaw Hospital x-ray Reports dated 20/8/1991 (for the 19/08/91 Bassetlaw x-rays of my knees) he believed Mrs Barnes had a case.

It was because of Mr Bourne’s letter that I contacted Mr Alan Milburn in a letter dated 28^th September 2000, the then Secretary of State for Health. However, you can see from copy letters below that Kevin Barron MP wrote a further twice (once on 5/10/00 and again on 15/11/00) and in his second letter Mr Barron actually threatened to bring the matter up at an Adjournment if not dealt with soon.

It was not until March 2001 that I received a letter dated 26 February 2001 from Yvette Cooper, Undersecretary of State for Health. She wrote back saying that I could consider reporting to the police matters that were relevant to them. In my estimation, if she and/or Mr Milburn considered there were matters for the Police to consider it should have been them who should have referred them direct to the police and it not been a matter for me or my husband to do.

However, you will see from the Fax sent on 1^st December 2000 to Malcolm Turner at Police HQ Nottingham and copied to DI Ross at Worksop Police Station with the relevant letters as mentioned here attached, that we had anticipated Yvette Cooper’s response and contacted the police ourselves.

 
You can also see from the last page attached and copied above that solicitor Tim Slow of Gosschalks had himself written to expert Radiologist Mr Strong at Bolton Radiology, advising him that he had seen the original 19/08/91 Bassetlaw Hospital x-rays and that there was an image seen by him in the original film of my Right knee that had not transcribed to the copy x-rays provided by the Trust.   

This true story continues …….

NB: All copyrights reserved   

9^th June 2013 [blog No. 27]

Hello again, it’s me, Peggy

I’ve just found this when reviewing my case files, it’s a letter dated 18^th May 2000 from Mr E Drake (Investigations Manager) at the Health Service Ombudsman’s Office and the letter had a report enclosed which reported on the Bassetlaw Hospital 1991 x-rays and x-ray reports of my left and Right knees allegedly by their In-House Medical Expert, albeit it does not carry the so-called expert’s signature.

I say allegedly because if an expert in anything wrote the report (apart from an expert comedian) I will eat my hat. But there again, if it was actually written by the Health Service Ombudsman’s In-House Medical Expert, it would account for the Health Service Ombudsman failing to act professionally in his/her duties. See copy letter and Report copied below.

Comments by the Health Service Ombudsman's In-house Professional Medical Adviser in relation to Mrs M A Barnes' complaint about x-rays taken in 1991

X-rays of limbs can always provide problems because they are paired and because of the transparent nature of x-rays, it is possible to put them onto a viewing box the wrong way round.

An x-ray report forms part of a patient's clinical record and contains the opinion of the doctor who wrote the report. This report may or may not be accurate and may or may not have been carefully delivered to a secretary/typist who may or may not have made a secretarial error.

All the x-rays in the trust have been examined by the consultant radiologist and clinical director,

Dr Howard, and I think that the Trust claim that they have now sorted out that the x-ray file is

acceptable. Further the Trust has agreed to add Mrs Barnes' additional note to the report of her

1991 x-ray.

Mr Zaroti, who saw Mrs Barnes on 15/11/1996 after a fall seems to have raised a large number

of questions in the Barnes' mind when he mentioned "foreign body in knee" - because he

showed them a shadow on the x-ray in 1996 and it was also present on the 1991 x-rays. When

told that Mr Dandy had operated in 1989, Zaroti commented that he must have missed it. This

was his opinion on that day but he could not substantiate this because he did not have any pre

1989 x-rays.

The missing fourth x-ray: It is usual to take a picture from the front to the back and then a side

view of each limb. The front to back ones are called (AP or antro-posterior) and both knees are

usually put onto one film. Sideways or lateral views are performed on each knee separately. It is

not possible to do one x-ray from the side because the two set of bones would overlay each other.

It sounds to me as if there was some technical problem because Mrs Barnes was recalled for a

second lateral x-ray. This could have been because of a technical problem and at some later date

such a film might have been destroyed. This would be normal practice.

At every stage in treatment, orthopaedic surgeons request separate new x-rays. They rarely refer

to the reports by radiologists and even if there was an inaccurate report in the notes, it is unlikely

that this would influence a patients care.

I have looked at the one x-ray on file and the loose body certainly looks well outside the joint

cavity and it is probably that it is in the soft tissues. It is possible to gain an impression that there

might be something in the tibia (the large bone of the lower leg) but it does not show up as metal

in the way that metal normally is revealed on an x-ray.

In conclusion, I would like to re-emphasise that a report is the opinion of a doctor. It may be flawed and inaccurate but it is not usual or appropriate to go back and alter a report.

NB: The above document does not carry the signature of the author.

You can see by referring to my 4^th Blog (on 17/1/2013) that I had complained to the Information Commissioner (Mr Iain Bourne Health Sector) alleging that the Bassetlaw Hospital X-ray Report for the 19/08/1991 x-rays taken of both my knees had been altered. I did this because the Report for the Right knee did not mention the absence of the Patella and the Report for the Left knee x-rays reported on one or more loose fragments, and of course it was a piece of bone (a bony lesion) that was eventually removed from my Right knee by Mr Bickerstaff at the Thornbury Hospital on 22 November 2002.

See file copy of my letter of response to Mr Drake dated 29^th May 2000 copied below.

When Mr Bourne referred the case to Mr Drake at the Health Service Ombudsman’s Office he did say that if only from the semantics of the reports he believed Mrs Barnes has a case.

This true story continues …….

NB: All copyrights reserved