A medical practice in the Southampton area

3. Mr O complains that the Practice misdiagnosed his brother with sciatica when he presented in April 2021 with severe pain from his back to his buttocks.

4. Mr O’s brother was subsequently diagnosed with prostate cancer and sadly died in September 2021. Mr O says the Practice’s misdiagnosis led to his brother dying of prostate cancer.

5. Mr O wants the Practice to admit the misdiagnosis and pay for his brother’s funeral, in the region of £10,000. Mr O also wants to ensure this does not happen again.

6. Between 1 and 19 April 2021, Mr O’s brother was seen by the doctors at the Practice. The Practice referred him for physiotherapy (which he received) to treat symptoms which were typical of sciatica (pain in the sciatic nerve) and piriformis syndrome (spasms in a muscle in the buttock region).

7. On 20 May 2021, Mr O had an unrelated appointment at the Practice. The Practice continued the management of his sciatica and piriformis syndrome.

8. On 21 June 2021, Mr O’s brother had a fall at home and the paramedics were called.

9. On 22 June 2021 the GP received blood test results showing several changes. There were signs of inflammation and a high level of an enzyme called Alkaline Phosphatase (ALP). Raised ALP can suggest a cancer infiltrating the bone.

10. On 14 July 2021 the GP arranged a further blood test. This showed minimal change in his ALP levels, but higher calcium levels. This can also be a sign of cancer. This triggered Mr O’s brother’s admission into hospital, and he was diagnosed with prostate cancer.

12. The Health Service Commissioner’s Act 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.

13. We have discussed this with Mr O to understand his circumstances and the outcomes he wants. Mr O suggests the Practice did not give his brother the correct diagnosis. As a result, he says his brother suffered pain and distress and died from the cancer. Mr O is looking for a financial remedy to cover the cost of the funeral. It appears he may have a legal remedy open to him for clinical negligence.

14. We do not consider whether legal action would succeed but whether it would be a reasonable option to look into. Mr O could pursue a clinical negligence claim and could also potentially pursue a claim under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976. As such, an alternative legal remedy exists for Mr O. We accept Mr O could not take legal action specifically to achieve service improvements, but this could be a by-product of any legal action he does take.

15. We considered whether it would be unreasonable to expect Mr O to pursue that route. We discussed what we may be able to achieve for Mr O if we found failings that led to the claimed impact. Mr O informed us he was seeking a figure of £10,000 to cover the cost of the funeral. This level of compensation is more likely to be available via a legal remedy. Mr O did not give us any reasons as to why he would be unable to pursue this option.

16. Having considered the evidence Mr O gave us, we have decided legal action is not unreasonable in this case. The courts can independently review the complaint and make a financial reward if it chooses. As such, we have decided to take no further action on his complaint. We hope that this information helps Mr O to progress his complaint and achieve the financial outcomes he is seeking.

1. We have carefully considered Mr O’s complaint about a medical practice in the Southampton area (the Practice). We consider there is a legal remedy available and see no reason to suggest it is unreasonable for him to pursue it.

2. We are sorry to hear about what happened to Mr O and his family following the death of his brother. We appreciate this will have been a deeply distressing time for them.