25^th August 2013 [blog No. 31]

Hello again, it’s me, Peggy

The Health Service Ombudsman responded to my husband’s request for a Review in a letter dated 19^th August 2013 denying him a Review of his case. See copy of letter below.

Listed below are my husband’s responses as put in the Request for a Review Form as sent onto the Health Service Ombudsman by email on 12/8/2013.

Re: Your complaint about the prescription of lipitor by Dr Louis (Cardiologist) and his assertion that you caused your own stroke symptoms through electing to come off Lipitor.

a) The Ombudsman's investigator did not consider that my wife had advised Dr Louis that I was intolerant to Statins.

b) The Ombudsman's investigator did not consider that my blood test results showed my cholesterol LDL/HDL to be within normal levels.

c) The Ombudsman's investigator did not consider that Dr Louis should have recognised that if Dr Louis had concerns over my cholesterol levels he should have resorted to prescribe an eating plan as opposed to Lipitor/Statins, him being made aware of my intolerance to Statins.

d) The Ombudsman's investigator did not consider that I was having problems with my speech as well as headaches and muscle pains and these side effects were a result of being prescribed Lipitor. The symptoms subsided in time after my GP had stopped me taking Lipitor and after my GP having diagnosed me as having suffered a stroke on 6 September 2010.

e) The GP’s actions were suspect when he diagnosed me as having suffered a stroke on 6/9/2010 and then referred me onto the RDGH Stroke Clinic to have blood tests 2-days later and a CT scan 10-days hence, as opposed to requesting a Blue Light. What happened to the F.A.S.T. NHS procedure when a patient is considered to have suffered a stroke??? According to the RDGH Stroke Clinic Consultant he CT scan results were useless after such a long period of time. It shows that both my wife and I have problems when seeking proper corrective treatment from our NHS! When I sought further advice in accordance with the suggestion of our Local MP, it was recommended on no less than three separate occasions that I should change my GP. And we (my wife and I) did.

f) The Ombudsman's investigator did not consider that a stroke is definitely a well-known side effect of taking Statins/Lipitor and should have been treated as such by Dr Louis.

g) The Ombudsman's investigator did not consider that the RDGH in their Complaints procedure and when reporting on the contents of the sound recordings provided, paraphrased what was heard/said in their transcribing of the sound recordings with intent to mislead.

h) The Ombudsman's investigator did not consider that the letter from Mr Lambertz to GP showed the contempt consultants/doctors had for me as a patient, and there was no way that I was to be able to access proper corrective treatment from the RDGH. Further complaints with the RDGH as attached here also show this to be a FACT!

i) The Ombudsman's investigator did not consider that Sleep apnoea is not a medical condition proper, and that it was only used as a get-out in preventing me receiving treatment.

j) The Ombudsman's investigator did not consider that after all said and done the hernia operation was undertaken at the Sheffield Northern General Hospital with only a one-night stay as an inpatient. It was undertaken without all the palaver under a general anaesthetic and within two months of them receiving the referral from my new GP. I allege that what went off at the RDGH was just a load of Bull****. The SNGH offered me Gold Standard Treatment albeit with the hernia having been waiting repair since 2005 they were landed with what had become an extremely complicated op. The rupture had gone down into the scrotum and part of my bowel had adhered to the right testicle. The operating surgeon advised that he might have to remove the right testicle completely. I suffered no side effects what-so-ever from having the general aesthetic.

k) Subsequently, I had been referred to the RDGH for a colonoscopy, which they performed on 9th July 2012. They also had instructions from the consultant to undertake haemorrhoid banding at the same time. After having this procedure I was left with more severe rectal bleeding and bowel pain than I had had previously. I lost all confidence in the RDGH and I requested of my GP that he refer me to another hospital. I was referred onto the Hallamshire Hospital in Sheffield for assessment of the rectal bleeding. At the consultation the consultant offered me the option of having 3 haemorrhoids banding at that consultation, and I agreed. I explained how I was of the opinion that banding procedure had not taken place at the RDGH at the time of the colonoscopy. He advised me prior to him undertaking the procedure himself that I would have definitely known if they had done it. And I can assure you here and now that they definitely had not done it albeit the RDGH say they have reported on three separate reports. See copy docs attached here.      

l) Furthermore, and further proof that my wife and I cannot obtain proper corrective treatment from the RDGH is the time (27 March 2013) when my wife had to call for an ambulance due to me collapsing at home with chest pains at around 8pm. I was taken to the RDGH, had blood tests done and kept in a cubicle until 2.30am. I was then approached by a doctor who informed me that they were having problems obtaining blood results. She told me to go home and to return if I became worse. When I asked how I was supposed to do that she said “get a taxi”!

My Husband went onto say in his Request for a Review that the subsequent complaint to the RDGH was whitewashed over just the same as this complaint was.       

Now, according to the Article in the Daily Telegraph on 13^th August 2013 (See copy of Article below as taken from the Daily Telegraph) Heath Service Ombudsman Dame Julie Mellor states; “Patients failed by toxic NHS cocktail”. It appears to us that Dame Julie Mellor’s Investigation Team are no better that the NHS when investigating complaints. It’s time she got her own house in order because she says that only 1 in 10 complaints about the NHS are investigated by the Health Service Ombudsman, and I say that that figure is far from being acceptable! What do you think??

By Laura Donnelly [Health Correspondent]

PATIENTS who suffer harm or poor care in hospitals are being failed by a "toxic cocktail" within the health service which means complaints go unheard and lessons unlearnt, the NHS Ombudsman has warned.

 

Dame Julie Mellor told The Daily Telegraph that patients often felt too frightened to complain for fear of receiving even worse treatment, while those who did encountered a wall of defensiveness from staff.

 

A report by the NHS Ombudsman, which investigates complaints when hospitals are accused of failing to handle them fairly, is calling for changes so that more concerns are acted on promptly, and action is taken before care is jeopardised. They include:

 

Access to a free patients' advice service 24 hours a day;

Each patient to be given the name of a senior person - usually the ward sister - as the first contact tor concerns;

Regular measurement of feedback from patients, so hospitals can compare their handling of complaints and make improvements.

 

The recommendations have been submitted to an independent review of hospital complaints by Ann Clwyd, a Labour MP whose husband died in hospital after a series of failings. The report is due next month.

 

It follows research by the NHS Ombudsman which found patients, carers and hospital staff were confused about how the system worked, while the NHS culture meant that too often, those who suffered harm were denied a simple apology.

 

As well as adding to patients' distress, it meant hospitals were failing to learn lessons from major tragedies, which were then more likely to be repeated, Dame Julie said.

 

She said: "What we found was that there is a toxic cocktail - patients felt reluctant to complain, because they can fear it will affect the care they get - and that if they do, they are met with a culture of defensiveness, where they don't get the explanations they need, and the opportunity is lost to learn really powerful insights, which could improve the NHS."

 

Research has found that more than half of those who consider complaining about the NHS do not do so, with many put off because they expect the process to be bureaucratic, while others believe it will make no difference.

 

Dame Julie, who was appointed last year, said that people contacted the NHS Ombudsman in desperation.

 

"There are three core things that people come to us about," she said. "Number one is - 'I just can't get a decent explanation, I really don't know what happened and actually maybe if I had a proper explanation that would sort it for me - I just want to know.'"

 "The second is when something has gone wrong, but there is a lack of acknowledgement of mistakes, and inadequate apology. The third is when there is insufficient remedy. I think that has really struck me about why the public complain, they do so because they want to prevent the same thing happening to someone else."

 

A study by the Ombudsman has found that staff are reluctant to properly investigate complaints because they are afraid of challenging the NHS hierarchy, or of drawing attention to failings by more senior colleagues, or that they will be punished for admitting to failings in patient care.

 

"This defensiveness is one of the most important things we need to overcome - that is about changing the culture, not about the procedure,"

 

Dame Julie said Patients who had complained reported that apologies felt insincere, and they felt their accounts of poor care were "manipulated" to minimise NHS failings.

 

The research found that one woman was advised to complain in writing about concerns that her mother was not being washed or helped to go to the lavatory in hospital. She was told her complaint would be acknowledged within 28 days. "My mum could have died in that amount of time," she said.

 

The Ombudsman has been criticised for not examining enough of the complaints which are passed its way.

 

Dame Julie last month promised a ten-fold rise in the numbers of cases which the Ombudsman examines but this still means only one in 10 complaints would be fully investigated,

 

She said it was "crucial" that hospitals improve their own systems, because accusations of poor care should be dealt with as quickly as possible before a situation worsened.

However, in my own case that has been set before the Health Service Ombudsman for a Review of my case (It’s been with the Ombudsman for almost two years now) and after an alleged breach of confidentially on their part, they first sent a letter asking me to give the KPPCC (the GP Practice) an opportunity to settle the matter on a financial basis but after seeking advice from a solicitor at our MP’s suggestion, the KPPCC just ignored the request for a settlement.

Subsequently, the Ombudsman requested further information, and after they had received the further information they responded saying that they were unable to review my case because I had provided them with too much information.

Subsequently, they sent me a further letter asking me what amount of compensation I was expecting to receive to satisfy my case. Our Local MP, when he saw the letter, said it was a trick because how could I in a position to set quantum on such a matter, and in any event had I set the amount  too high they would have turned my case down for that reason. So, it was a “trick”, yes?

However, some weeks ago our Local MP took the case on-board himself due to my frustration with the Ombudsman’s Office, and he himself has now received a letter dated 16^th August 2013 from the Ombudsman’s Office basically kicking my case into the long grass!!

See copy letters below dated 23^rd August 2013 from our Local MP, The Rt. Hon Mr Kevin J Barron MP, to me and a copy of the letter to Gwen Harrison at the PHSO.

This true story continues …….

NB: All copyrights reserved   

11^th August 2013 [blog No. 30]

Hello again, it’s me, Peggy

I wish to draw your attention to Lipitor and Statins in a complaint against the NHS by my husband.

Firstly though, I am sorry for the delay in getting back to you here but it was due initially to a virus unwittingly being downloaded onto my computer after some kind person sending it to me in an email. Then subsequently, due to me suffering a further fall, which was due to my on-going Right foot problem. It has gone untreated because it was no good me attending our local hospital (RDGH) where I allege I cannot obtain proper corrective treatment.

I wish to refer you to my Blog number 24 where I referred to Mr Giles at the RDGH in December 2008 where and when he did say that if he were to treat my Right foot problem he would want to amputate my foot, from just below the knee. Much to my great concern I see that Mr Giles (according to the RDGH clinical list) is working in paediatrics where I contend the patients are so young they are unable to argue their condition or to be aware of what is going-off.

As I said in my previous blog, covering-up mistakes in our NHS is now reported in the media on a daily basis, and Jeremy Hunt MP has a difficult task ahead of him in putting the NHS back on track, especially if he fails to address the matter of the cover-up culture in our NHS. Not just a cover-up culture by staff against fellow colleagues but the cover-up culture against the patient when the NHS has been found doing something wrong.

The so-called Patient Services Department (The old “PALS” Department) at the Rotherham District General Hospital are no pal of the patient and/or the patient’s relatives. They are there and paid for by the NHS to put further pressure on the patient and/or the patient’s relatives by way of leading them up the garden path to the NHS merry-go-round complaints procedure. It’s a trick.

My husband had cause to complain because he too could not obtain treatment from the RDGH for his urgent hernia repair. His operation was put-off in 2005 by the consultants saying his heart problem did not warrant any operation being undertaken.

When a fresh referral was made by our then GP Practice (Kiveton Park Primary Care Centre) in May of 2010 a letter dated 24^th May 2010 had been sent back to GP Dr Chasabingo by the Consultant General Surgeon Mr M M Lambertz. To our dismay my husband discovered a copy of the letter in his medical records when he asked to see his files at the RDGH.

We, my husband and I, found the letter very distasteful and in fact downright intolerable. See copy of the letter copied below here where Mr Lambertz refers to my husband as “fortunately he still being around to tell the tale and further refers to my husband as “and it is fit enough for repair”.

A further referral had been made by Mr Lambertz for my husband to see Cardiac Consultant Dr A Louis at the RDGH. At the consultation (which my husband sound recorded) Dr Louis prescribed my husband with Lipitor albeit his cholesterol readings for LDL and HDL were within the prescribed limits, and I had also advised Dr Louis myself that my husband was intolerable to Statins as Statins had made him very ill in the past. Dr Louis insisted that Lipitor was a different medication and insisted my husband try them.

Within the following three weeks my husband’s health went downhill, and he telephoned our GP Practice on Friday 3^rd September 2010 explaining his condition of how he was having trouble with headaches, muscle pain and from time to time difficulty with speaking. The GP advised him to stop taking the Lipitor tablets, and made an appointment for my husband to see a GP on the Monday following that weekend. When he attended the surgery the GP examined him and diagnosed him as having suffered a stroke.

Instead of the GP sending for a blue light he simply stopped my husband from driving forthwith, made a routine appointment for him to have blood tests done at the GP Practice over the next couple of days and made a routine referral to the RDGH for him to undergo a CT Scan which was done 10-days after the event of being diagnosed as having suffered a stroke! The consultant at the hospital’s stoke clinic confirmed that them doing a CT Scan so long after the event was useless in diagnosing him of having suffered from any possible stroke. The scan results came back negative just as the Stoke Consultant had envisaged.

I allege that by Dr Louis (Cardiac Consultant) at the RDGH prescribing my husband with Lipitor (Statins) when I had categorically advised him of my husband’s intolerance to Statins was a direct attempt at doing my husband harm!

When my husband went onto the internet researching Lipitor he discovered that Lipitor were reported as being the worst possible kind of Statin, and what my husband had suffered as a result of taking Lipitor was in fact a common serious adverse reaction. You just cannot trust these people.

My husband put his complaint to the Patient Services Department (the old “PALS”) together with sound recordings of the consultations and telephone calls but they came back with the same old story that they Consultants at the RDGH had done nothing untoward.

See copy of my husband’s letter dated 24^th November 2012 to our Local MP, The Rt. Hon Mr Kevin J Barron MP, requesting of Mr Baron that he put the matter of a complaint to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. See also copy of MP’s letter to the PHSO of the same date. It has to be said that in one other matter of complaint put to Ms Taylor by my husband over a Colonoscopy issue she did handle it professionally in that she managed to get a consultant to see my husband within 48-hours of him lodging his complaint.

Unfortunately, when he subsequently attended the Sheffield Hallamshire Hospital for his problem to be assessed again he realised that they had not undertaken a particular procedure when he had attended the RDGH on 9^th July 2012 albeit the RDGH say they have it recorded on at least three reports that they had done the procedure in question at the same time of his Colonoscopy. My husband had sound recorded the whole procedure at the RDGH on 9/7/2012 and again when he attended the Hallamshire Hospital where the missed procedure was undertaken to a Gold Standard.

The Ombudsman came back to my husband in a letter dated 13 May 2013 in what they have termed as being a “RESTRICTED” document (meaning I cannot display it here because they are gagging him) simply saying in a bog-standard format that they have found nothing untoward with the RDGH. That Merry-go-Round is continuing to go around.

Before I go I wish to refer you to my blog No. 28 (16^th June 2013) with regards to a former firm of Atteys Solicitors who had been acting on a proposed case of professional negligence against Gosschalks Solicitors of Hull.

I noted that Atteys Solicitors were disbanded totally by the SRA in March 2013 in a case where again the details are being kept from public knowledge as to why they have shut them down. Now, is that been transparent?

On the 9^th April 2013 I requested of the SRA that my Atteys Files be returned to me by the SRA Investigation Team but to-date, after several attempts at obtaining my case files, I am still being stone-walled by this SRA Quango. My husband last contacted them on my behalf on 24^th July 2013 where once again they (Jess) stone-walled him. She said that she would get back to us but to-date (some three weeks later) we have heard nothing from them.

This true story continues …….

NB: All copyrights reserved   

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