THE TYPE OF CASE WE DO

Aged 10 months L was taken to GPs over a period of nine days suffering from at first heavy cold type symptoms which deteriorated with L groaning, and becoming floppy and lifeless when handled.

L's condition continued to deteriorate and she was reassessed by a GP. The GP saw L at 10.20 am and diagnosed a continuing viral infection and advised administration of paracetamol (Calpol) and fluids.

At about 5.30 that day L's grandmother noticed a rash on her back and stomach. The rash did not disappear on pressure with a glass. L's grandmother then took her to hospital.

At about 7pm L arrived at hospital, was assessed and intravenous antibiotics commenced.

At 8.45 L was admitted to the intensive care unit.

L recovered from her infection however has been left with extensive scarring, leg length discrepancy, impaired walking with bone and joint destruction around both knees. It is possible that she will go on to demonstrate cognitive problems.

It was argued for L that she should have been sent to hospital following assessment at 10.20.

t was argued for L that had she arrived at hospital 6 hours earlier her condition would have been diagnosed and she would have been treated such that her long term injuries would have been avoided.

L's case was defended through trial. The issue for the trial judge to decide was (1) what were L's presenting symptoms and what history was given to the GP at 10.20 (2) having decided the symptoms and history whether the GP should have referred to hospital at once and (3) whether earlier referral would have avoided L's long term injuries.

The Judge accepted the evidence of L's family as to her presentation and description of her symptoms given to the GP rather than accepting the GPs consultation note. The Judge went on to find that the GP should have referred L to hospital and earlier referral would have resulted in treatment that would have avoided L's long term injuries.

The case has been adjourned to allow for investigation of the necessary compensation award.