Fatally delayed diagnosis of melanoma

The client had type 2 diabetes, diagnosed in 2015, and attended regular checks with the diabetic nurses at her GP practice. These appointments included routine examinations of her feet.

In 2016, the client noticed an area of staining on the bottom of her foot. One of her daughters took a photograph of it.

At a diabetic check in early 2017, the client said she raised the concern with the diabetic nurse, but her concerns were dismissed. She returned to the practice in August and December 2017, alleging that she raised the changing lesion again. However, no action followed.

By spring 2018, the lesion on the client’s foot had changed significantly in size, shape and colour. She became increasingly worried that her concerns weren’t being taken seriously.

After searching online, the client suspected she might have a rare type of melanoma. She sent a photograph of her foot to a clinician at a specialist cancer hospital, asking for help.

The clinician immediately advised her to attend her local hospital without delay. The client received a formal diagnosis shortly afterwards and began treatment. Sadly, the cancer spread, and she died in August 2020.

The delay in diagnosis meant the client faced a serious cancer diagnosis after months of concern about the changing lesion on her foot.

The client sadly died in 2020. Her widower and daughters then took over the claim, seeking answers about whether earlier action by the GP practice could have changed the outcome.

Alongside the loss of their wife and mother, the family faced the challenge of pursuing a claim in which the GP practice disputed their account of the earlier appointments.

The team on the case began the claim in 2020, relying on the client’s account and expert medical evidence. The evidence supported the argument that the diabetic nurse should have referred the client to a GP, who would most likely have made an urgent referral to a hospital dermatology team.

The GP practice denied liability, meaning it disputed legal responsibility for the harm. It argued that the medical notes didn’t record conversations about the lesion in 2017, so those conversations hadn’t taken place.

However, both sides accepted that by early 2018, when the medical notes did record the client’s concerns, it was too late to change the outcome.

Despite the denial of liability, the team on the case continued to assess the full value of the claim. This involved calculating compensation for the client’s pain and suffering before her death, alongside a bereavement award and expenses.

The claim also included an element of dependency, which recognises financial support a family member may have received from someone who has died.

By preparing the claim in full despite the dispute over liability, the team was able to negotiate a settlement on behalf of the client’s family.

In September 2022, the family secured a negotiated six-figure settlement. This brought the claim to a conclusion despite the GP practice’s continued dispute over the earlier conversations.

The settlement included compensation relating to the client’s pain and suffering before her death, as well as bereavement, expenses and financial dependency.

The client’s husband said:

“I want to take this opportunity to thank you and your team for a job well done. It has been a very difficult couple of years but we got there. I believe my wife would have been pleased with the outcome.”

Losing someone to cancer is difficult, particularly when you have concerns that an earlier diagnosis might have made a difference. If you’re worried about the medical care a loved one received, Fletchers can help you understand your options.

Our medical negligence team can explain how a claim works and help you explore the next steps.

Find out more about our medical negligence claims service.

Contact us today to speak to our team.