Bella represents Claimants and Defendants in a wide range of clinical negligence cases. She has significant and ever-growing knowledge of working with experts and managing multiple experts on individual cases. Her ongoing cases span ophthalmic claims, delayed treatment leading to amputation, and negligently performed cosmetic surgery and treatment during pregnancy, sadly resulting in the loss of a child.
Bella has a particular interest in delayed cancer diagnosis claims, and her compassionate and personable approach is of particular assistance in putting distressed clients and their families at ease.
Bella is also currently advising upon a number of ongoing high-value clinical negligence claims, all of which involve numerous experts from multiple disciplines.
- S v SUH NHS Trust – Acting for the Claimant, a financial trader who was prescribed Cabergoline for a pituitary adenoma. He was not warned of the risk of pathological gambling which was recognised but not routinely advised of. He and his wife complained about mood disorder but he claims that concerns were not followed up. The claim includes a claim for financial losses of around £400,000. Breach of duty and causation are in dispute.
- A v GSHC and CCH NHS Trust – Acting for the Claimant. The case concerns a delayed diagnosis of lung cancer. The Claimant’s wife died in 2012 as a result of the primary cancer and widespread metastatic disease. D2 has very limited liability which is admitted and settlement has now been reached with them. D1 (the GP) disputes breach of duty and causation. There are real issues surrounding the likely progress of the disease had earlier diagnosis been made. There are GP, respiratory, radiology and oncology experts on both sides.
- M v UCLH NHS Trust – Acting for the Claimant. This is an unusual case considering consent and the impact of the Supreme Court judgment in Montgomery v Lanarkshire. The Claimant underwent surgery for her epilepsy which was successful. She was not, however, advised of the extent of any visible cosmetic injury to her face and which she claims she asked about specifically. The risks were significant but not routinely advised of (on a Bolam basis). There is also an interesting issue upon causation. The Claimant says that she would probably have had the surgery in any event had she been advised of the risks but would have been prepared for the skull depression that resulted and not developed psychiatric injury as a result of the shock.
- MB v BH NHS Trust – Acting for the Claimant in a fourth degree vaginal tear claim. The case concerns interesting issues relating to consent (on a repeated basis as labour progressed) as well as issues of material contribution / causation. The claim also highlights issues concerning inadequate and inconsistent medical records
- JU v UHB NHS Trust – Acting for the Claimant in a claim for negligent excision of a lump found during surgery for a biopsy, causing damage to recurrent laryngeal nerve and leaving the Claimant with a permanent tracheostomy. Liability has now been admitted but the Claimant has since lost capacity for unrelated reasons, and the claim continues in relation to the extent of causation and quantum.
- H v. (1) M and (2) TH and others – Multi-million pound claim in the High Court for alleged failure to diagnose a footballer with a serious cardiac condition, subsequently leading to cardiac arrest and brain injury.
- PC v. B – A claim for delay in diagnosing compartment syndrome and necrotizing fasciitis, in addition to the alleged negligent administration of gentamycin, resulting in the Claimant developing deafness and having to undergo a high leg amputation. Breach of duty and causation was disputed by the Defendant. A successful application was made to debar the Defendant from relying upon all expert evidence, served late and not in accordance with court orders. A High Court appeal was due to be heard when the Defendant made an offer to settle the whole claim. Settlement was reached at £775,000.
- AK v. CMU – A claim for delayed diagnosis of bowel and liver cancer leading to perforation of the tumour through the bowel wall, and giving rise to a severe locally recurrent disease. The Claimant’s prognosis is alleged to have been significantly compromised and the claim is now proceeding by way of expedited directions.
- MG v. BFWH – Fatals claim for failure to diagnose bowel cancer leading to premature death. The claim is brought against the GP and the hospital, and includes a subsequent allegation of failure to identify and treat an anastomotic leak.
- AW v. LTH – A claim for alleged failure to manage this young Claimant’s established Crohn’s disease during pregnancy and birth, leading to the Claimant having to have her bowel removed during her early thirties, with reliance upon a permanent stoma.
- CH v. CMUH – A claim relating to a laceration occasioned to the Claimant’s transplanted kidney during the course of caesarean section.
- KO v. N – A claim for alleged GP negligence in failing to prescribe lifelong antibiotics to a new patient who had moved from Poland and had previously undergone a splenectomy. The Claimant ultimately developed septicaemia and had to undergo bilateral below knee leg amputations.
- In Thomas v. Ottavianni – Successfully represented the Claimant at trial in a claim for negligent breast augmentation and lack of consent.