A medical practice in the Gateshead area

3. Miss E complains her GP snapped her contraceptive coil while trying to remove it. Miss E experienced severe pain and heavy bleeding. She says she was not offered a scan or antibiotics. She was admitted to hospital two weeks later with a pelvic infection and required surgery to remove the remaining part of the coil.

4. Miss E says was unable to work for three months as she recovered from the surgery, and she has since experienced ongoing problems with her health. She is seeking financial remedy for the treatment she received and the direct loss of financial earnings.

5. Miss E went to the Practice on 16 June to have her contraceptive coil removed. During the procedure the coil snapped and Miss E experienced heavy bleeding. She was not offered any form of follow-up care.

6. On 29 June, Miss E was admitted to hospital with severe abdominal pain and a temperature of 40˚C. She was diagnosed with an infection and had surgery to remove the remaining piece of coil.

8. The Health Service Commissioner’s Act (HSC) says we cannot investigate a complaint where a person has (or had) the option to take legal action, unless we consider this is (or was) unreasonable in the circumstances. We can see Miss E suggests she received care which fell below the appropriate standard she would have expected. As a result of this she says she suffered pain and distress and was unable to work for three months while she recovered. Accordingly, it appears that Miss E may have a legal remedy available. We therefore need to consider if it is unreasonable for her to pursue this course of action.

9. We have discussed this with Miss E to understand her circumstances and the outcome she wants. We do not consider whether legal action would succeed but whether it would be a reasonable option to look into. 10.We discussed what we may be able to achieve for Miss E if we found failings that led to her claimed impact. Given that Miss E is seeking compensation for the treatment below the expected standard, and the direct loss of three months wages, she is seeking an amount greater than we would be likely to achieve. Three months of salary at minimum wage equates to approximately £3800. Under our severity of injustice scale, Miss E would likely receive compensation in line with Level three (£500 - £900). This does not meet the level of compensation she is looking for, therefore, she will be better suited to seek compensation through legal proceedings.

10. Miss E has met barriers when seeking legal advice in the past. She says she contacted a ‘no-win, no-fee’ solicitor and they said they could not take her case as clinical negligence was ‘a grey area’. Miss E told us she would not be able to fund legal action herself. We have provided Miss E with information from our website to help her with finding an appropriate solicitor to consider her potential clinical negligence claim.

11. Having considered the evidence Miss E gave us, we have decided legal action is not unreasonable and could be more likely to help her achieve her desired outcome. The courts can independently review the complaint and make a financial reward. We hope that this information helps Miss E to progress her complaint and achieve the financial outcome she is seeking. As such, we will not be taking any further action on this complaint.

1. We have carefully considered Miss E’s complaint about a medical practice in the Gateshead area (the Practice). We consider there is a legal remedy available to her and see no reason this could not be pursued.

2. We were very sorry to hear what happened to Miss E and the significant impact this has had on her.