Six figure sum for man left with damaged urethra after surgery

Semi-retired man suffers damaged urethra during catheter surgery. Hospital admits clinical negligence after Potter Rees Dolan team argue sub-standard care.

John was in his mid-70s and was a semi-retired Consultant Haematologist who trained in the UK but worked as a consultant abroad. He was fit and active and travelled with his work.

In 2007 he showed symptoms of an enlarged prostate such as passing excess urine, pain and discomfort. He was diagnosed with bladder stones and was told he would need an operation on his prostate.

He was admitted for surgery in 2010 and was reassured that the surgery was routine and it should only take a couple of hours. During the operation, he sustained an injury to his prostate and urethra which meant the surgeon had to fit two catheters.

Unfortunately, this meant John could no longer pass urine by himself. He was left in a worse state after the operation than he was when he went in.

The hospital was able to remove one of the catheters but the second one had to remain.

Following an x-ray in 2011, John was told that there had been some considerable damage done to his urethra during the operation and this was now irreparable.

He has been left with a permanent catheter in place, following what should have been a simple operation.

We argued that the standard of care provided to John during and after the surgery was seriously below standard and in particular there had been a delay in recognising just how bad John’s problems were following his operation, meaning that any opportunity to put things right had been lost.

The hospital admitted their negligence and we were able to secure a six figure sum in damages for John. He was no longer able to travel with his work as much and so this assisted in covering his loss of earnings.

Lesley Herbertson acted for John and commented:

It was very rewarding to be able to obtain a fair amount of compensation for John without having to start court proceedings. The hospital trust agreed to compensate him for not only his pain and suffering but also for his loss of earnings from work that he continued to do abroad despite being in his mid 70s, once we had been able to provide evidence of that work and the income it produced.