Woman incorrectly removed from cancer monitoring register for two years

In 2018 and 2019, a woman, who we will refer to as Mary, underwent a series of investigations for respiratory symptoms including persistent cough with blood in her phlegm. CT scans showed an abnormal lung opacity that was increasing in size. Opacity refers to a hazy grey area that can indicate medical issues.  

As a result, Mary was placed on a cancer monitoring register, with plans for close follow‑up and repeat scanning. No diagnosis was made at this stage as the growth was too small to biopsy. Mary’s team planned to review the growth six months afterwards.  

An outpatient appointment was cancelled and not properly re‑arranged. Despite a multidisciplinary recommendation for repeat imaging within six months, no further scan was organised. Instead, Mary was incorrectly removed from the cancer monitoring register and marked as having no cancer. Her care was marked as “on hold” for two years. 

During this period, Mary experienced ongoing physical symptoms and increasing anxiety. She believed that she had been discharged from specialist cancer care and was unaware that there were unresolved concerns about her lung imaging. 

In late 2021, a review of patients who had been placed “on hold” identified Mary’s case. She was urgently recalled for further investigation. A CT scan showed a significant increase in the size of abnormal lung tissue and a biopsy confirmed lung cancer. Further tests also revealed an additional diagnosis of lymphoma. Mary felt shocked and terrified upon receiving the news of these diagnoses. 

Mary underwent surgery to remove the lung cancer and chemotherapy to treat the lymphoma, a course of treatment that caused distressing side effects and required a prolonged period away from work. Although her cancer treatment achieved good clinical outcomes, the psychological toll was substantial. 

Mary approached Michael Roberts, senior associate solicitor in Leigh Day’s medical negligence department, to investigate and pursue a claim against the hospital trust. Witness evidence was taken from Mary with the assistance of paralegal George Acquaah to identify the impact of the events on Mary. Independent expert evidence was also obtained.  

Expert oncology evidence confirmed that the removal of Mary from cancer follow-up and the failure to arrange timely scans amounted to a breach of the duty of care, while independent psychiatric evidence established that the failures had caused Mary significant psychological harm due to the prolonged period of uncertainty, followed by the shock of the late cancer diagnoses. 

A letter of claim was served setting out the errors that led to the two-year delay and detailing the injury caused. An offer of settlement was proposed alongside the letter of claim. After carrying out its own legal investigation, the NHS trust accepted the settlement offer without an admission of liability outside of court, and Mary received a five‑figure sum in compensation. 

Mary said:  

“I would like to express my sincere gratitude for the outstanding legal work on my case. Michael and his team made a difficult time so much more manageable with their patience, clear explanations, guidance, and kind support. I am now financially able to put something away for my beautiful grandchildren, and I will be forever grateful.” 

Senior associate solicitor Michael Roberts said:  

“This case highlights how delays in cancer pathways can have lasting consequences. Robust follow-up systems and clear communication are essential to prevent avoidable harm to patients. I am very pleased that we have been able to secure a positive outcome for Mary that will provide closure and a brighter future for her and her family.” 

Leigh Day worked with barrister Rajkiran Arhestey of One Crown Office Row Chambers.