Clinical negligence specialist Sally-Jean Nicholes recently acted for A, an eight year old boy who was born at a UK NHS hospital.  Sadly his birth was mismanaged as a result of which he has severe cerebral palsy.

The Defendant NHS Trust admitted liability for causing A’s very severe disabilities. We argued that the final amount of compensation should not be decided soon after A’s birth, because his condition was evolving. The court accepted this argument and between 2004-8, ordered the Defendant to make interim awards of damages. Using those payments, it was possible to purchase and adapt accommodation for A, buy equipment and therapies that A needs, and to employ and train carers to assist A’s family in meeting his needs.  

The claim for damages settled only a day before trial was due to start, when the Defendant submitted an acceptable offer.  A will receive a lump sum of £2.86m, plus annual payments to cover care and case management costs.  Until the age of 21, A will receive £200,000 per annum and £215,000 from age 22 for the rest of his life. The annual payments will be free of tax and linked to the Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings 6115 (ASHE) measure of carer’s earnings.  

A is profoundly physically disabled.  He is totally dependent on others in all aspects of his daily life, he is unable to move independently and has no speech.  He is fed by gastrostomy (a permanent tube which goes through the abdominal wall into his stomach).  However, he can use equipment and technology especially adapted for him to help maximise his abilities.

The equipment includes an eye-controlled computer and communication aid that has transformed the way in which A communicates. He operates the device by looking at particular letters, words or symbols depicted on a screen and selecting them. The device detects A’s selections using a number of cameras mounted (and adjusted specifically for him) inside the monitor.  When he instructs the device to do so, the machine says what he has selected. The ‘eye gaze’ system is particularly important to A because other devices (augmentative communication aids) rely upon the user having sufficient manual dexterity or head control to be able to operate switches, which A has not been able to manage very well.  The device has helped A to make progress in the classroom with his school work, play games and ‘chat’ with his family and friends far more easily than would otherwise have been possible.  

A was represented by Sally-Jean Nicholes, partner in the Clinical Negligence department at Leigh Day & Co.  For more information please contact Sally- Jean on 020 7650 1200.