4. Mr A (represented by his daughter Mrs R) complains about the care and treatment he received from a podiatrist at the Trust in February 2022. He says the podiatrist injured him with a scalpel at an appointment and failed to document it.
5. Mr A says this injury caused him unnecessary pain and suffering, he now struggles to sleep and has become very depressed.
6. Mr A is seeking a financial remedy, service improvements and an apology.
9. 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 A to understand his reasons for the delay in approaching our office. We have also considered the time the Trust has taken to respond to him and his daughter.
10. Mrs R has represented Mr A throughout the complaints process. Mrs R initially brought this complaint to us on 20 November 2023. However, the Trust had not provided a formal response, so it was not ready for us. The Trust sent its final response on 28 December, and she returned to us on 2 January 2024.
11. Mr A told us he has had a ganglion (fluid filled cyst) on his foot since he was 15 years old. On 4 February 2022 he had an appointment to see a podiatrist about an issue with his toenail. During this appointment the podiatrist made an incision in the ganglion with a scalpel. Mr A says this was unnecessary as he had never had any issues with his ganglion before this appointment.
12. On 8 February, Mr A went to his GP as the ganglion on his foot had become very painful and was leaking fluid. Since this time, Mr A has had lots of appointments due to the injury to his foot. He says his health and wellbeing have deteriorated, and he is currently waiting to have surgery to try and repair the damage.
13. We consider Mr A’s date of knowledge is 8 February 2022. This is the date he first visited his GP with pain from his foot. To be within our time limit, Mr A should have complained to us by 8 February 2023. We received his initial complaint on 20 November 2023 (nine months outside of our time limit).
14. We spoke with Mr A on 30 July 2024 to confirm the date he knew there was an issue and to understand why he did not complain sooner. He told us he knew there was something wrong on 8 February 2022, as he was in a lot of pain, so this is when he visited his GP.
15. We asked Mr A why he had not complained sooner. He told us he had trusted the medical professionals to treat his injury and he thought it would heal. He explained he did not consider complaining until his daughter suggested it. We appreciate these reasons, and that Mrs R did not become aware of the injury until she attended an appointment with her dad in October 2023.
16. Mrs R’s date of knowledge differs from Mr A’s. We understand once she became aware, she helped her father complain to the Trust and to us in good time. Unfortunately, our law says the person affected must make a complaint themselves, unless there is a reason they are unable to do so. We confirmed with Mr A that he can complain with the help of his daughter.
17. We have not seen any other barriers which would have prevented Mr A asking for help from his daughter sooner had he wanted to complain. Additionally, there are no other factors which made it difficult for Mr A to complain more promptly. Therefore, we consider he should have brought the complaint to us before 8 February 2023.
Conclusion
18. We appreciate Mr A still has ongoing health complications with his foot and he hoped this would heal. We understand complaints are often overwhelming and we recognise Mr A did not want to complain as he trusted the doctors would solve his problems.
19. By law, we can only investigate matters that are brought to us within one year of the complainant’s knowledge. Mr A came to us 11 months after that time limit. We acknowledge the importance of this complaint and that he will likely be disappointed with our decision.
20. To exercise our discretion, there must be a reasonable justification for the delay. In this case, it appears Mr A could have told his daughter about his injury sooner if he needed help to complain. We have seen no strong reason to waive the time limit in this case.
1. We have carefully considered Mr A’s complaint about Berkshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust). Mr A told us he injured his foot during a podiatry appointment in February 2022. Following this he suffered pain which has impacted his sleep. We were very sorry to hear this and appreciate this must have been upsetting for him.
2. This complaint falls outside of our one-year time limit. We have not seen a good reason to put our time limit to one side, so we cannot consider it further.
3. We understand this will be a disappointing outcome for Mr A. We want to apologise for any further distress this decision may cause and hope we have clearly explained our decision in this statement.