15. We firstly considered the action Mr A wants against the doctors. Some complaints can be looked at by both us and another complaint handler. We usually consider that only one investigation should take place and therefore decide which organisation is more appropriate to do so.
16. There will be occasions when we decide that there are other reasons why we should not investigate a complaint made to us. This includes if someone wants an outcome that we would not be able to achieve or if an organisation is considering the same issues (such as the General Medical Council). In which case, it is appropriate for us to wait for the outcome of its work first.
17. We have spoken with Mr A to understand his circumstances and the outcomes he wants from his complaint. Mr A told us he wants action taken against each doctor involved in his care. He told us he does not feel they should be able to provide care to patients, they should be taken off the register and wants an investigation into criminal actions. He also wants a financial remedy.
18. Mr A told us that he feels his surgeon at Dorset County Hospital NHS Foundation Trust turned all the other doctors and paramedics against him. He said there should be repercussions for them all, he believes they are corrupt and acting illegally.
19. We appreciate Mr A has been in pain and is extremely frustrated by the events and the doctors involved. We cannot make recommendations about individual healthcare professionals, and we cannot consider any criminal behaviour. As these are outcomes he wants, Mr A will need to contact the professional regulators. This will be the General Medical Council (GMC) for the doctors involved and the Health and Care Professionals Council (HCPC) for the paramedics involved. Both organisations will be better suited to consider the actions taken by those individuals, their fitness to practice and any actions needed.
20. We then considered the financial remedy Mr A is asking for. We asked him what outcome was more important to him. He told us he wants the doctors held responsible and taken off the register. Even though this was most important to him, he still seeks a financial payment.
21. We asked Mr A how much he is looking for and he told us that no amount of money would change the pain he has been in. He said ‘£10,000 would not even touch it’ and he is out of pocket for travel expenses and has paid privately for treatment with a chiropractor.
22. The law says we cannot investigate if there is, or was a legal someone could pursue, unless it is not reasonable for them to do so. We do not consider whether legal action would succeed but whether it would be a reasonable option to look in to.
23. It is our understanding that a clinical negligence claim may be available to Mr A because he says the delays and lack of treatment have led to ongoing mobility issues, pain and discomfort. He says the surgery in April 2023 led to worsening problems and explained he has paid privately for treatment.
24. Mr A explained he has discussed his case with a criminal solicitor, who was unable to help. He has not spoken to a clinical negligence solicitor.
25. Because he has already been able to speak to a criminal solicitor, there are no barriers to him speaking to a solicitor specialising in clinical negligence. Most of these claims are funded by way of no win no fee agreements which would not incur any upfront costs. There does not appear to be any concerns about this type of funding.
26. Although Mr A is not able to specify an exact figure, it seems he is looking for a significant sum above £10,000. While we can make recommendations on investigation for financial remedies, the amounts we recommend are typically modest when compared with what legal action can achieve. We do not achieve financial outcomes like the courts do.
27. On this basis it is therefore appropriate for Mr A to speak to a solicitor before he asks us to consider his concerns about his care and treatment. If he is unsuccessful in pursuing legal action or is unable to achieve the outcomes he wants, he can bring his complaint back to us to consider. We cannot look at concerns a court, the GMC or HCPC has already examined, but we can consider if there is anything remaining, we can look at, and if there are any other outcomes we may be able to achieve for him.
28. We do not think Mr A would be able to make a legal claim in relation to the distress caused by the communication with his son and the information about his alcohol and drug use. However, as these are closely linked to his main concerns it would not be appropriate for us to look at these elements of his complaint in isolation. We would not be able to achieve the outcomes he is seeking from looking at this part of the complaint only. This is because Mr A says his main concern is the lack of treatment and that he has been left with mobility issues and pain. It is also possible that he may obtain answers through any legal action and speaking to the GMC and HCPC.
29. Should Mr A want to bring his complaint back to us, he should do so as promptly as he can. This is because we have a time limit for looking at complaints which is 12 months from the date the person was aware they had reason to complain. We do have some discretion when applying our time limit but there must be good reason for us to put this to one side.
30. We thank Mr A for bringing his complaint to us for us to consider. We hope this decision statement clearly explains our reasoning.