The years between

Following the outcome of my surgery, I decided to get my life and career back to normal. December 2006 I hit the ski slopes which was fantastic!! Only four months after having the frame removed and I was skiing!! I got myself back to the gym and threw myself back into work. I loved being back in London.

However, the results of my 'bodged' surgery were never far from my thoughts. My 'new' leg looked terrible. Totally out of shape - which made me very self-conscious. Finding suitable trousers became even harder than it had been initially. I had a constant limp due to having one leg longer than the other, which people always commented on and I could not get a full bend through my leg. The limp soon lead to backache and I was unable to stand for long periods of time, making going to the pub, cocktail parties or standing in queues very uncomfortable. I was given an instep for the left shoe, to lift my left leg slightly, however this was not enough and I could not have anything larger as I would not be able to hold it in my shoe. However, I continued with life as normal and started to train for a 10k run, went to the gym regularly and was back on skis!

My father was particularly disgruntled with the result and wanted to explore the legal possibilities and compensation which we may be entitled too. Our reasoning behind this was not purely mercenary, but if I was to have to have future surgery, then more time would be required off work and I would suffer loss of earnings. We also wanted to look into the private facilities available, however could not consider this as an option without some kind of financial assistance. We instructed a lawyer and started the legal ball rolling. Once we had received copies of all my medical records, we enlisted a medical expert to pull together a full report on my case. He would write a paper on my history and the operation and post-operative care and draw a conclusion on my care and if any negligence can be pin-pointed.

Several hundred pounds later (legal fees are expensive), we saw the report. I was not really sure what to expect, however it was far from conclusive. We felt that many of the questions and issues we raised had not been answered. The conclusion drawn was that my 'varus deformity had been corrected, which it had, but in the process I had been left with a valgus deformity' (the new shape of my leg). It stated that if this 'new deformity had been identified whilst the frame was in place, then it would have been a relatively straightforward to correct by re-programming the frame... However, a valgus deformity occurred and this should have been avoided if a careful eye had been kept on the patient in outpatients.' This is what we were hoping to hear, there had been some element of post-operative negligence throughout my treatment. However, the paper went on to say that 'despite this, the end result has been much better for the patient than the preoperative state'. So, medically I was better off than before the operation, in terms of a reduced risk of osteoarthritis, but I had been left with a limp, a leg length discrepancy of more that 2cms and I was starting to get associated pain in my lower back, my quality of life had been significantly reduced, not to forget that I would need more significant surgery in the future. How was this considered 'better off than previously'?

We decided to take the case to a medical negligence specialist to ask their advice, it agreed that a degree of post operative negligence had taken place - my leg was 8 degrees out of line with my hip and ankle, but this would be a very hard case to prove in a court of law. As the frame was self-adjusting it would be easy for the defence to flip the case around and blame my parents for the over correction. It was also advised that it would cost thousands of pounds to get this to court, it would be hard to create a solid case and if we were lucky then the settlement received would be minimum, especially in relation to the amount to get it through the courts.

We thought long and hard about the course of action we would take and we decided not to pursue with any legal action. The cost, stress and high chance of a negative outcome strongly outweighed any of the positive points. This was slightly frustrating as it was a dead cert that I would have to go through it all again in the future and therefore my career and life would once again be interrupted.