4. Mr C complains about the Practice’s care and treatment between December 2019 and December 2020. He says the Practice did not correctly refer him for the right tests.
5. As a result, Mr C says he was severely affected and had to have his kidney removed. He says if the correct tests were done sooner, the removal of his kidney may have been avoided.
6. Mr C would like financial compensation, an apology and staff involved to be held responsible.
7. Mr C told us he has a history of illness covering a 30-year period. This was mainly due to inhaling diesel fumes.
8. In November 2019, Mr C went to the Practice and was diagnosed with a chest infection.
9. In December 2019, the Practice did further tests which found that no more antibiotics were needed.
10. On 25 August 2020, Mr C had a consultation at the Practice after complaining of upper back pain and a cough. The Practice said Mr C had experienced similar back pain in the past. The doctor did blood tests and X-rays to rule out possible prostate cancer and chest or spine problems.
11. On 28 September 2020, Mr C went to an accident and emergency department because of acute abdominal pain and vomiting. After tests including a CT scan, Mr C was diagnosed with pancreatitis (a swollen pancreas) and the test results showed a mass on his right kidney. After more investigation, Mr C was diagnosed with kidney cancer.
12. On 11 December 2020, Mr C had right laparoscopic radical nephrectomy. A nephrectomy is the surgery to remove a kidney and treat a number of kidney diseases including kidney cancer.
Reasonable to pursue legal action
14. The law 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 have discussed this with Mr C to understand his circumstances and the outcomes he wants. We do not consider whether legal action would succeed but whether it would be a reasonable option to look in to.
15. Mr C says as a direct result of clinical negligence, he was not referred for the correct tests to help identify kidney issues. He told us if the Practice did the correct tests sooner, the removal of his kidney may have been avoided.
16. Mr C wants to be compensated for the impact of having his kidney removed.
17. Mr C told us he thought his complaint was level six on our scale of injustice. He told us he would be looking for above £30,000 in financial compensation.
18. Mr C is looking for financial compensation beyond the amounts we might typically recommend. We cannot say how much compensation Mr C might achieve through legal action. But he is seeking a large amount of money, and if he got this, the costs of legal action would likely be less than any potential compensation.
19. Mr C did not tell us of any barriers that would stop him pursuing legal action. We have considered whether there are any signs it would not be reasonable for Mr C to pursue a legal route. However, we have not found any practical barriers that would make this process difficult for him, or mean that it would not be reasonable for him to explore his options regarding legal action. His complaint is also within the three-year time limit for making a legal claim.
20. Taking all this into account, we are not able to consider this complaint further. This is because we can see it is reasonable for Mr C to explore if legal action can resolve his complaint.
21. If Mr C’s circumstances change and it is no longer reasonable for him to pursue legal action, he could bring his complaint back to us. He could also return to us for our decision on any matters the courts could not look at, such as complaint handling, or for any outcomes the courts could not achieve, like improvements to services.
22. However, we should make clear that if he were to bring the complaint back to us, we would not be able to consider issues the courts already reached a decision on and recommended financial compensation.
1. We have carefully considered Mr C’s complaint about the care and treatment he got from a medical practice in the Doncaster area (the Practice). We are sorry to hear about his difficult experience and his ongoing health concerns. We recognise the impact this is having on his life.
2. We consider Mr C could take legal action on the complaint he has brought to us. This is because we can see Mr C has a legal avenue open to him. We consider it reasonable for him to pursue the financial remedy he is looking for by looking into legal action. Mr C can return to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (us) for any outcomes that a court cannot achieve for him, such as improvements to the Practice’s services.
3. It is important the Practice has the chance to look at this issue, give him a response and put right any mistakes. Often this is the quickest way to resolve complaints. Therefore, we will not be taking any further action on Mr C’s complaint at this time.