Fletchers Solicitors
Serious Injury and Medical Negligence
Make a Claim

Looking towards the future

Looking towards the future

Medical Negligence

Looking towards the future

At the appointment, Kay informed her GP of the symptoms, and he also noted her fourth toe was beginning to claw; therefore she was referred to Guy’s and St Thomas Hospital to undergo further investigation, with surgery a possibility.

In April, Kay attended her hospital appointment and discussed the options available with the doctor, being advised that she would benefit from having insoles fitted to her shoes and that this would relieve some of the pain. She was advised that should the insoles to not be beneficial over a few months, Kay would need to return and undergo surgery.

Unfortunately, the insoles weren’t successful, and in fact Kay felt they made things more painful. Kay returned to the hospital in August and was placed on the waiting list for surgery by her doctor. She later underwent surgery, followed by a check-up appointment in late September. The wound on her foot was reviewed and she was told it had healed well, that the corn underneath would fall off naturally, and to come back in three months’ time.

Four months later, Kay returned to the hospital for another follow-up and advised her doctor she had been experiencing stiffness in the left foot, and some pain. Her doctor stated that manipulation under general anaesthetic would be useful; this procedure went ahead in March, and following it Kay was able to move around.

Shortly after, Kay was seen at the hospital again as her foot remained painful and would occasionally give way. Her fourth toe was also shortened and elevated, she was advised she would need to undergo additional surgery; Kay could not agree to further surgery at the time, as the procedure would mean more time off work and she had young children to take care of.

The problems continued over the following months. Kay had difficulty walking, and knew she would soon need to undergo the surgery. She requested a hospital referral and was added to a waiting list for the procedure.

In September 2015, Kay attended Guy’s Hospital to undergo an arthroscopy on her left ankle, following which she was able to move around in flat shoes again with the aid of crutches. The operation was only a day procedure, so Kay was discharged within hours, being advised to return in a few days for the wound to be cleaned and re-dressed. Kay returned to the hospital two weeks later to have the stitches removed; this was completed with no problems noted.

A few weeks later, however, Kay became aware of something protruding from her skin and arranged for her surgeon to examine this. She attended an outpatient clinic appointment a week or so later at the hospital with her consultant; the protrusion turned out to be stitches embedded in the wound which had been left from the previous surgery.

Doctors were unable to pull the stitch out, so after several painful attempts, it was suggested Kay should wait to see if her body would naturally push the stitch out. By the end of the month the stitch hadn’t come out on its own, so Kay arranged another appointment and was advised she would need to have it removed under local anaesthetic. Following the trauma from the first attempt to remove the stitch, Kay declined the procedure. It was noted there were a further two stitches within another part of the wound, causing it to become infected and inflamed, which was causing her pain. Her doctor advised she would now require general anaesthetic; the need to undergo another procedure both upset and angered Kay.

The operation took and the sutures were identified and removed. Unfortunately, Kay’s ankle remained painful, and she was referred to undergo physiotherapy and hydrotherapy in the hope these would resolve some of her problems.

The physiotherapy was unsuccessful, and Kay is now on a waiting list, due to undergo further additional surgery on her ankle. She will require the ligaments in her ankle to be cut, with a wire inserted to stabilise her foot.

Kay’s injury and negligence meant she has needed to rely heavily on support from her mother, especially with taking her two children to school when she was unable to get up and down the stairs.

Kay contacted Fletchers to see if she had a claim for medical negligence. We were able to gain an admission from the hospital for negligently failing to remove the stitches at her review, and further that there was a negligence failing in trying to remove the stitches leading to the need for Kay to undergo further surgery.

We achieved a settlement of £5000 for Kay’s case, which she hopes to use to help with the time off work she has needed to take. Kay has unfortunately been unable to return to her job and therefore the compensation should provide some much-needed support.

I am so happy how my case was handled. I was always fully updated and now I can move on with my life.

Kay Cadby

We hope that now Kay’s case has settled she will be able to look at moving forward and we wish her all the best for the future.

If you’ve suffered any kind of medical negligence similar to what happened to Kay, then please don’t hesitate to call us now on 03300 080 321 to talk to someone who’ll understand what you’re going through.

Case Personnel

Chloe Westwell - Case Lawyer

Key case timeline


Kay Cadby underwent an arthoscopy of her left ankle, having had a long standing history of ankle pain due to an injury sustained as a child. During a review at a nurse led clinic, it was noted that the sutures had become imbedded deeply in her would. She was then listed to have the sutures removed from her ankle under general anaesthetic. She returned to theatre the following month for the suture removal however during the procedure she was found to have granulating tissue over the sutures. She also had a superficial wound infection in her ankle, which was treated by oral antibiotics. She is now on a waiting list, due to undergo further additional surgery on her ankle and will require the ligaments in her ankle to be cut and have a wire inserted to stabilise her foot.


We settled Kay's case for £5000.


The Defendant admitted breach of duty in failing to remove all of Kay’s stitches appropriately at her review. They further admitted that there was a negligence failure in trying to remove the stitches leading to the need for Kay to undergo further surgery.


Kay is now able to move on from her ordeal and we hope the compensation will help with the additional time off work she has needed to take and compensate her for the inconveniences the negligence has caused.

Recent Cases