Christina Mallery-Nelson

This clinical negligence claim arose out of the standard of care provided to the claimant during labour. The claimant was expecting her fourth child and wished to have a caesarean section. Despite her concerns and clinical advice that she should have a caesarean section in her pre-natal care, she was denied this opportunity. She subsequently underwent an emergency caesarean section, where she suffered damage to her ureter.

She also suffered post-operative complications including urinary infection, abdominal pain, removal of stent, pain as her bladder fills, discomfort in her kidneys, urinary frequency and urgency, ureteric reflux and an increased susceptibility to urinary tract and kidney infections (requiring antibiotic therapy). Christina successfully achieved a settlement.

This case arose from substandard care provided by an optician. The claimant attended his optician suffering from a shadow, flickering of light and loss of peripheral vision in his left eye. Following examination and dilation tests, the claimant was advised that no abnormalities were detected.

A few weeks later, he was referred as an emergency to hospital due to complete loss of vision in the left eye. He was diagnosed with complete retinal detachment and required reparatory surgery. The claimant suffered with reduced central vision. Liability was denied, however Christina was able to negotiate settlement.

This clinical negligence case arose of the care provided following childbirth. The injury involved a retained swab as a result of weaknesses in the system for accounting for swabs within the non-theatre environment of the delivery suite. This was a “never event” in which liability was admitted, and a settlement achieved.

This case arose out of the care provided to an elderly claimant whilst a resident at a nursing home. The claimant suffered Grade 4 pressure sores and further wounds due to failings in her care. Liability was admitted, with a settlement negotiated and achieved by Christina shortly thereafter.

The claimant attended A&E following a fall and sustained an injury to his right knee. The claimant was in significant pain, unable to walk and could not straighten or raise his right leg. The right kneecap had moved higher up on his leg as a result of the injury. An x-ray was undertaken and he was later advised that his right knee had dislocated. He was discharged with no follow up arranged. Around a week later, the claimant re-attended A&E due to a painful and swollen right knee. A deep vein thrombosis was suspected, and a follow-up was arranged with CT scan.

Whilst the claimant awaited the CT scan, he booked a private MRI scan which diagnosed a complete rupture of the patella tendon. The claimant subsequently underwent emergency surgery to repair the tendon. Liability was admitted, and a settlement reached following quantum investigations.

The claimant was inappropriately discharged from the fracture clinic following surgery. She was later advised that her fracture had not healed, the metalwork had failed and that she required revision surgery. The trust admitted liability, and a settlement was achieved.

This case arose out of the care provided following a laparoscopic left radical nephrectomy (removal of the entire kidney and surrounding fat, usually used as a treatment for primary kidney tumours). The surgery was performed due to a suspicious cyst in the left kidney. The procedure was uneventful. On discharge, the claimant was not prescribed or given anticoagulants. The claimant re-presented with breathing difficulties and increased left leg swelling. He was diagnosed with bilateral pulmonary embolisms and a deep vein thrombosis. He required life-long anticoagulation. Liability was admitted, and settlement was achieved.

This clinical negligence case arose out of substandard care provided to an elderly lady (deceased) whilst an inpatient in hospital. She developed a grade 3 sacral pressure ulcer and grade 2 pressure ulcer to the buttocks. The sacral pressure ulcer deteriorated to a grade 4 pressure ulcer, and materially contributed to the development of sepsis and her death.

Christina was contacted by the deceased’s family to assist with an Inquest. Christina assisted in finding a barrister who had direct access training, whom the family instructed privately. Upon the conclusion of the Inquest, Christina was instructed to investigate the clinical negligence claim. Liability was admitted and Christina reached settlement.

This case arose out of the care provided by a GP. The claimant was inappropriately prescribed oestrogen-only HRT as treatment for her menopausal symptoms. This was inappropriate in her case, as she had not undergone a hysterectomy. Liability was admitted and a settlement was reached.

This medical negligence case arose out of the care provided to a claimant who was admitted to hospital with a provisional diagnosis of metastatic cancer awaiting CT scan confirmation. The CT scan showed no recurrence of cancer, but discovered gallstones. The claimant was discharged, with an ongoing prescription of steroids.

Two weeks later, the claimant represented to A&E with significant weight-loss. It was confirmed that he had previously been discharged with steroids for metastatic cancer, which he should not have been given. He suffered from steroid induced diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol and underactive thyroid. Liability was admitted, and a settlement was achieved.

The client had a long and complex medical history, which included abnormality in breast development. She underwent breast augmentation at the age of 17 and remained under the care of the breast clinic.

In 2017, the claimant required breast implant removal and replacement. The removal was undertaken under the NHS, with replacement undertaken on a private basis. The implants were removed without complication.

The replacement surgery was not performed to an acceptable standard, as the right breast implant was inserted too far laterally. Consequently, the claimant suffered from asymmetry. Subsequent remedial surgeries were unsuccessful, as the surgeon failed to identify the root cause of the asymmetry (being malpositioning of the implant). Liability was denied, but a settlement was achieved.