A practice in the Cornwall area

3. Mr M complains about the care the Practice gave him in December 2016. He says the Practice failed to act on his raised prostate specific antigen PSA level (PSA tests can detect prostate cancer).

4. Mr M was diagnosed with prostate cancer in 2021. He says if the Practice had referred him to urology (specialists in the urinary tract system) in 2016, his cancer would have been diagnosed and managed sooner. He says his treatment has caused severe side effects and he has been unable to work.

5. Mr M would like the Practice to acknowledge its error. He would also like financial compensation.

6. On 14 December 2016, Mr M had a PSA blood test result of 39. The Practice say they told Mr M that he needed to have a follow up test four weeks later. Mr M says the Practice did not tell him about the need for a follow up.

7. On 12 July 2021, Mr M had a PSA test result of 85. He was referred to urology and diagnosed with prostate cancer. He was treated with radiotherapy and hormone treatment.

10. 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.

11. We have discussed this with Mr M 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.

12. Mr M is understandably concerned about what he says was a failure by the Practice to refer him to urology in 2016.

13. The side effects of Mr M’s treatment include tiredness, weight gain, lack of energy and hot sweats. He has been unable to work since starting his treatment.

Mr M says that with an earlier diagnosis, he would not be in the position he is in now.

14. Mr M wants the Practice to accept that it got things wrong and financial compensation to reflect that he is unable to work.

15. Based on the information provided, Mr M could make a claim for clinical negligence.

16. We asked Mr M what level of compensation he was looking for. He suggested £120,000 at first to reflect that he cannot work. After more discussion, he said there was not a fixed amount of money that he had in mind.

17. A court can make a finding on whether the Practice was negligent and award compensation for the big impact Mr M says this had on his life. A court could also achieve the acknowledgement Mr M wants.

18. It is in Mr M’s best interests to first of all look into making a legal claim. If the claimed injustice is proven, a legal claim is likely to be able to achieve a higher amount of compensation than we would be likely to recommend.

19. Mr M said there was nothing stopping him from looking into taking legal action. The time limits for taking legal action are strict and we advised Mr M to explore this without delay.

20. Should Mr M not achieve all the outcomes he is looking for through legal action, he can return to us. If he was to return to us, he would need to do so without delay as we have a time limit for investigating complaints.

21. We understand Mr M’s experience has had a life changing impact. We hope this statement clearly explains our decision not to consider his complaint further at this time.

1. We have carefully considered Mr M’s complaint about a GP practice in the Cornwall area (the Practice). We are sorry to hear of the difficult circumstances Mr M faced.

2. We think Mr M could take legal action on the matter he has brought to us. For this reason, we have decided to take no further action at this time.