Fletchers Solicitors has settled a case for £465,000 following the death of a 55 year old woman after a delay in her cervical cancer diagnosis.

The woman’s death was caused by admitted failures by the Defendant Trust to correctly interpret a cervical biopsy in April 2015.

The biopsy picked up abnormal cells which required further investigations but this was not interpreted correctly by the hospital. They admitted that had the diagnosis of the cells been done correctly, then the woman would have been referred for further investigation and treatment.

She should have been diagnosed with stage 1 cancer of the cervix and would have undergone a radical hysterectomy and would likely have avoided chemo-radiotherapy.

It was admitted that the delay in diagnosis led to the prognosis deteriorating. It was further admitted that if the diagnosis had been made in April 2015, the woman would have had a reduced risk of her terminal diagnosis.

There were extensive negotiations with the Defendant’s legal team, whilst High Court proceedings remained ongoing. The parties reached a settlement agreement to allow the husband and immediate family time to finally come to terms with the devastating impact the death of their beloved wife, mother and grandmother had upon their lives.

Daniel said:

“This was a devastating case which pulled at my heart strings. I could see just how much of a loss this lovely lady was to her husband, children and grandchildren. I hope that the family can now finally grieve for their loss now that the case has been concluded and more importantly; I hope the Defendant Trust puts more stringent measures in place to ensure this type of devastating and life changing error never happens again. I wish the family well in the future.

“Thanks also to Richard Norton (Counsel) of St John’s Building Chambers who provided excellent advice throughout the case along with demonstrating excellent advocacy and negotiation skills at the settlement meeting, which I believe persuaded the Defendant to settle without the need of pursuing the High Court proceedings further, which would have only prolonged the family’s agony.”