Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust

3. Mr R complains about the care and treatment he received on 9 May 2019, from Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust (the Trust). He says the Trust damaged his liver during a biopsy and caused an elevated hemidiaphragm. An elevated hemidiaphragm is a condition where one portion of the diaphragm (the major muscle for breathing located below the lungs) is higher than the other.

4. As a result, Mr R claims he has been unable to work due to the severe pain he now experiences. Further, he says he is unable to carry out daily tasks such as going to the gym and swimming.

5. By bringing the complaint to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, Mr R is seeking systemic changes and compensation. He would like to ensure this does not happen to anyone else. Finally, Mr R says he is seeking more than £220,000. He says he is seeking this amount as he will now need to retire from work seven years early, as well as for the distress he has suffered.

6. In November 2018, Mr R started to suffer intermittent pain in his righthand side, so Mr R visited his GP who sent him for blood tests. His GP referred him to the Trust for a liver biopsy. A liver biopsy is a medical procedure in which a small amount of liver tissue is surgically removed so it can be analysed in a lab.

7. On 9 May 2019, Mr R attended the trust where it performed a liver biopsy.

8. In October 2019, Mr R experienced pain and visited his GP. The GP sent him for further X-rays. Results showed his right lung had an elevated hemidiaphragm. Elevated hemidiaphragm occurs when one side of the diaphragm becomes weak from muscular disease, or loss of innervation due to phrenic nerve injury.

9. In December 2019, Mr R had an appointment with the chest clinic at the Trust. The Trust provided him with three options to help his diaphragm go back to normal:

A. Wait 12 months to see if the diaphragm goes back to normal on its own B. Supply him with a breathing mask to use during evenings C. An operation to repair the damage to the diaphragm

11. The law says a person needs to make their complaint to us within a year of becoming aware of the problem. We cannot investigate complaints brought to us after one year, unless we consider there is a good reason to do so. We have discussed this with Mr R to understand the reasons why he could not bring his complaint to us sooner. We have also considered the time the Trust has taken to respond to his complaint.

12. In his complaint form, Mr R confirms he was immediately unhappy in May 2019. However, Mr R did not bring his complaint to us until March 2021. His complaint is therefore ten months out of time.

13. Mr R did not complain to the Trust until 30 September 2020. This was one year and four months after he became aware of his concerns. We discussed the reasons for the delay with Mr R. During a telephone call, Mr R explained he had a major operation in December 2019, therefore he could not begin the complaints process sooner. We recognise this would have had an impact on Mr R’s ability to complain from December 2019. We have taken that into account. We queried why Mr R did not approach the Trust or us before his operation in December 2019. Mr R did not provide any explanation for this.

14. We do not wish to diminish the impact Mr R says these events have had for him. In his complaint form, he also explains he went on a family holiday three weeks after he became aware of this problem. We therefore consider Mr R had an opportunity to start his complaint with the Trust before December 2019.

15. We can see the Trust responded to Mr R’s concerns on 5 October 2020. This is less than one month after he raised his concerns. Mr R was not satisfied with the response and went back to the Trust with his concerns.

16. We note the Trust issued its final response to Mr R’s concerns on 1 February 2021. We can see the Trust’s complaint process took four months in total. We have taken this into account when considering our time limit. It is not a significant amount of time for the Trust’s complaint process to take.

17. We do not underestimate the difficulties Mr R says he experienced, and we are sympathetic to the health-related issues that were present. We have taken everything he told us and all the circumstances into account.

18. Our view is Mr R could have approached us with his concerns much sooner. We have not seen good reasons to put our time limit to one side and we will not consider this complaint further.

1. We have carefully considered Mr R’s complaint about Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust (the Trust). We have decided the complaint falls outside of our time limit. We consider Mr R could have complained to the Trust sooner than he did. As such, we have decided not to put our time limit to one side.

2. We are very sorry to hear about the circumstances that led Mr R to approach us. We appreciate he has been through a difficult experience with the pain he has suffered. We are sorry to learn he cannot enjoy all the activities he used to.