Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust

3. Miss O complains about the care and treatment she received from the eye disease clinic at the Trust from February 2019 to October 2019. She complains the Trust incorrectly diagnosed the condition in her left eye and therefore gave her the incorrect medication for six months.

4. Miss O says this failing has affected her life dramatically. She says she experiences constant pain in her left eye, and it has forced her to give up her usual social activities. She explains she can no longer continue her voluntary work as it involves working at a computer for long periods of time. She says it has affected her confidence and she now suffers with depression.

5. Miss O is seeking an apology from the Trust and acknowledgement of failings. She believes the Trust should pay her a substantial amount of compensation as she feels she has lost two years of her life.

6. Miss O was seen by the Trust in April 2019, where she was suspected to have the Herpes Simplex Virus (HSV), which is an infection of the centre of the eye. She was prescribed antiviral medication to be taken twice daily.

7. During her appointment a Polymerase Chain Reaction test (PCR), a swab that is taken to help diagnose or confirm a diagnosis of an infection, was performed to confirm the diagnosis. This test result showed that Miss O had the Varicellar Zoster Virus (VZV) instead. This is a type of Herpes Virus that causes an infection of the centre of the eye, it is normally treated with higher doses of antiviral medication. The Trust did not inform Miss O of this result until six months later in October, when it changed the dose of her medication.

8. Miss O complained to the Trust in August 2020, and the Trust provided its final response in December 2020. Miss O previously raised a case with the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman in February 2021, this case was closed as Miss O had chosen to pursue legal action. Miss O’s legal advice concluded on 6 January 2022.

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.

12. Miss O knew about the matter complained about in October 2019 when the Trust told her it had overlooked her test results in April 2019. That means to be within our time limit she needed to come to us by October 2020. Miss O brought her current complaint to us on 28 January 2022. Her complaint is therefore a year and three months outside of our time limit.

13. We have discussed this with Miss O to understand the reasons why she could not bring her complaint sooner. We have also considered the time the Trust took to respond to Miss O.

14. We have seen that there was a gap between when Miss O became aware of her need to complain in October 2019, and when she first complained to the Trust in August 2020. This is a gap of ten months.

15. Miss O told us this was due to ill health which continued to July 2020. After this she then felt able to make a Subject Access Request for a copy of her medical notes and raise her complaint. She explained to us that she was unable to raise a complaint until August 2020 as the stress of beginning a complaint may have impacted her eye condition and made this worse. We understand she had health concerns during this time and were sorry to hear about this.

16. When looking through Miss O’s evidence we saw that she told us we could communicate with her relatives as they were able to explain her complaint in more detail. She expressed she was happy for us to communicate with them regarding her complaint.

17. We understand that this was a difficult time for Miss O and have considered whether this is reason enough to enable us to put our time limit to one side. However, ten months is a significant period of time. We have seen that there were other ways for Miss O to raise a complaint to the Trust sooner, such as through an advocate or seeking assistance from a family member. We are therefore unable to put the time limit aside for this period.

18. When reviewing the time taken for local resolution to be completed, it took the Trust a total of four months to issue their final response. During this time Miss O was waiting for responses to her complaints, and any delays were not due to her.

19. The Trust sent a final response to Miss O in December 2020. This gave details of our service if she remained unhappy. Miss O approached us in February 2021, two months later. This is a gap of two months that was due to Miss O not pursuing her complaint through the complaints process. During this time Miss O was seeking legal advice. This was her choice to obtain advice about the financial compensation she is seeking.

20. When Miss O came to us, she was still taking legal advice, so we were not able to consider her complaint at that time. Again, she was seeking an alternative legal route, so by law we could not consider her complaint. This was her choice, based on the financial outcome she is seeking.

21. Miss O brought this complaint to us after taking legal advice in January 2022. This was a year and one month after the final response. This meant the complaint was now a year and three months outside of our time limit.

22. It was Miss O’s choice to pursue an alternative legal route for this lengthy period of time. This was the right thing to do given the fact she wanted significant financial remedy. However, it has added significantly to the time her complaint is outside of our time limit. We cannot put our time limit aside on the basis she was exploring another route.

23. We can see that when the Trust initially responded to Miss O’s complaint on 17 September 2020. It included information about our service with its response. That includes information about our time limit: ‘There are time limits for taking a complaint to the Ombudsman, although these can be waived if there is good reason’.

24. We are therefore satisfied Miss O was aware of our service, and aware of the time limits for making a complaint by October 2020. The delays caused are as a result of the actions taken by Miss O in initially raising her complaint to the Trust and pursuing legal action.

25. Having considered Miss O’s reasons for the delays, and considering the time taken for local resolution to be completed, we have seen no good reason to enable us to set our time limit aside. There are lengthy gaps where Miss O was able to complain and did not or was able to ask a relative to do this on her behalf.

26. It is difficult to justify putting the time limit to one side if the complaint could have come to us sooner. We have therefore decided Miss O has made her complaint outside of the 12 month time limit and we cannot take further action on her complaint.

27. It is important we consider and act within the law and we regret any further upset this decision may cause. We hope this statement clearly explains the reasons why we will not be considering the complaint further.

1. We have carefully considered Miss O’s complaint about Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust). We were sorry to hear about the experience Miss O had and the challenges she now faces. We recognise Miss O has been through a difficult and distressing time.

2. Unfortunately, Miss O’s complaint falls outside of our 12 month time limit. We have considered all the circumstances of the complaint and the reasons for any delays Miss O told us about. We have not seen strong reasons to enable us to put our time limit to one side. We are sorry for any additional distress this may cause and hope our explanations below explain how we have fully considered this.