East Suffolk and North Essex NHS Foundation Trust

4. Mr H complains about aspects of the care and treatment he received the Trust between December 2021 and October 2023. Specifically, Mr H said the Trust:

• misdiagnosed him and gave him incorrect surgery on 15 December 2021 • missed an opportunity to recognise his neck fracture following X-rays in the A&E department on 7 May 2023 • missed a further opportunity to recognise his neck fracture at an appointment on 19 May 2023 • failed to properly investigate and explain Mr H’s complaint.

5. Mr H says he had to have painful repair surgery in December 2022 due to the misdiagnosis and incorrect surgery in December 2021.

6. Mr H explains his neck fracture (which occurred in 2023) was only recognised in April 2024. He says this meant he has suffered severe pain and discomfort, and lost the ability to do normal activities, like sport, and this also had an impact on his daily life.

7. Mr H also says these events have meant he has suffered a loss of income and future income as he owns his own business. He also says the Trust’s failure to investigate and acknowledge his complaint had added to his distress at an already difficult time.

8. As an outcome to his complaint, Mr H wants a significant compensation of £1.5 million. This is due to the significant pain and distress caused for a long period, as well as loss of earnings and future earnings to his business. Mr H also wants the Trust to admit its failings and acknowledge the impact caused, and to make improvements to their complaint handling.

9. Mr H had a number of MRI scans in 2019, 2020 and November 2021. These led to a diagnosis of level two cervical stenosis. This is a narrowing of the tunnels in the spine which contain the nerves or spinal cord. It can cause arm pain, stiffness, weakness, tingling, or numbness. A decision was made to conduct discectomy surgery (a procedure to remove part or all of a herniated disk in the spine), and this went ahead on 15 December 2021.

10. In March 2022, Mr H saw his surgeon and reporting he was in a lot of pain. An MRI scan was arranged in June 2022, which showed concerns with the section of the neck which connects with the upper spine (C7-T1 spinal segment). A second surgery was arranged to address this area, and this took place on 6 December 2022.

11. Mr H hit a pothole whilst driving in May 2023. He visited A&E a few days later as the pain was so severe. Mr H says the A&E staff did not conduct tests, like x-rays or spine analysis.

Mr H says he was told to contact spinal department.

12. On 19 May 2023, Mr H had an X-ray and appointment with the surgeon. The surgeon said the results of this did not show cause for concern and advised for Mr H to stop physiotherapy if it was too painful and to continue at a later date. Mr H said the pain eventually went away by October 2023.

13. On 22 October 2023, Mr H was in a bus crash and visited A&E. The A&E staff arranged a back board (a medical device used for safely immobilising and transporting patients with suspected spinal or neck injuries), CT scan and MRI scan. Both scans showed Mr H had fractured his neck. He was admitted for two days and was given a neck brace on discharge.

14. On 19 February 2024 Mr H experienced sudden pain in his back and neck when lifting an object. He attended the Trust’s A&E department, and the staff arranged a back board and CT scan. Mr H said a consultant who looked at his previous imaging told him that the neck fracture had been missed by the surgeon and A&E at previous visits in May 2023. They advised Mr H to make a complaint.

15. Mr H complained to The Trust on 20 February 2024. There were a number of responses and further concerns raised, and Mr H remained unhappy with the Trust’s responses and handling of his complaint. Mr H therefore brought his complaint to us on 10 April 2025.

Reasonable to pursue legal remedy

18. 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.

19. We have discussed this with Mr H 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.

20. Mr H raised concerns about the clinical care and treatment provided by the Trust. He believes these failings directly caused his pain and suffering and negative impact on his daily life and his business.

21. As an outcome for his complaint, Mr H wants a significant compensation of £1.5 million and says that he sits at a level six on of our Severity of Injustice scale (£12,500 or more). This is due to the significant pain and distress caused for a long period, as well as loss of earnings and future earnings to his business.

22. Given Mr H’s complaint, it appears he may have a claim for clinical negligence, as he believes the Trust’s failings in care caused him personal injury and loss. Negligence, in law, is an act or failure to act (omission), that does not meet the level of appropriate care expected, which results in injury or loss. If a doctor or health professional is negligent when giving you medical treatment, this is called ‘clinical negligence.’

23. We have next considered whether there are any barriers to Mr H taking legal action.

Mr H said he currently has a separate personal injury claim, and he would like to have one firm consider this and the potential clinical negligence claim together. He says his current personal injury firm is not able to do this. Mr H also said he has had difficulties finding a firm for his clinical negligence claim due to the need for expensive tests and analysis, which would be needed to understand the likely success of a ‘no win no fee’ claim.

24. At present, Mr H has only sought advice from one legal firm. We therefore consider it is reasonable for Mr H to explore his potential legal options further, as other firms may have different expertise and consider claims and costs differently.

25. If Mr H is unable to secure legal action after contacting one or two more solicitors and obtaining written confirmation explaining why, he is welcome to return to us with that evidence so we can further consider his complaint.

Additional outcomes sought

26. We note Mr H is also seeking additional outcomes. He would like the Trust to admit its failings and acknowledge the impact caused, and to make improvements to its complaint handling.

27. A successful legal claim would likely involve an acknowledgement of failings in care and a consideration of the impact on Mr H.

28. The sought outcome of service improvements would likely fall outside of a potential legal claim. We have therefore considered whether to look at this outcome now. We consider it would be more appropriate to look at this after the concerns have been explored through the legal process. This is because whilst service improvements may not be directly achievable via the courts, these may still happen as a result of a successful legal claim.

Aspects outside of our time limit

29. If Mr H comes back to us after pursuing potential legal action, we would not consider his concerns about the surgery in 2021. This is because the law says we should usually only consider concerns within a year of the person becoming aware there was a reason to complain.

30. From the information Mr H provided, it seems he had some cause for concern about the 2021 surgery from March 2022. Mr H reported he was not able to lift his chin from his chest at this time as it hurt so much, and he reported it felt like a trapped nerve and that his arms were on fire.

31. Mr H also told us his consultant reviewed his previous three MRI scans in April 2022 and when considering the MRI scan from November 2021, the surgeon commented ‘oh, that is the disc I should have taken out.’ Mr H had a fourth MRI scan on 30 June 2022 which showed the discs were the same as the previous MRI scans, suggesting these were not operated on as part of the 2021 surgery.

32. Mr H tells us this was when the second surgery was arranged to fix this problem. Mr H tells us this was a particularly painful surgery, and this could have been avoided had the surgery in 2021 been completed correctly.

33. In light of the above, we consider it is reasonable to suggest that Mr H was aware of concerns with the surgery in 2021 from March 2022. We cannot see he made a formal complaint at this time. This concern is therefore outside of our one-year time limit.

34. We have considered Mr H’s reasons for not complaining about this aspect sooner. Mr H says he was not aware there had been an issue with the surgery in 2021, and he initially thought it was just bad luck or further problems with his back.

35. He said he did not complain when he became aware of the issues in 2022 as he was in so much pain and just wanted to recover. He asked the surgeon for reassurance that he would be fixed this time, and therefore decided if he was, he would not complain.

36. He says he found out more information in 2024 when he had access to his medical records. He says he also became aware at this time of the extent of the mistakes in the 2021 surgery. He therefore made a complaint in 2024.

37. Whilst we appreciate the further information Mr H received in 2024, we still think Mr H was reasonably aware of the concerns in 2022, and we therefore consider a complaint could have been made at this time. We therefore would not consider the concerns about the 2021 surgery further, as we consider these are out of time for our process.

38. Although this aspect falls outside of our time limit, Mr H can still explore whether this aspect can be considered as part of a potential legal claim. This is because the timescales for a clinical negligence claim are different to our own, and a claim can usually be made within three years of the issue occurring. Mr H would need to discuss this further with his legal advisers.

Next steps following legal action

39. If Mr H is unable to secure legal representation and receives written confirmation explaining why, then he is welcome to return to us with the evidence so that we can further consider his complaint. Mr H can also return to us if following legal action, he has outstanding outcomes that the court was unable to order (such as service improvements), or if the court was unable to consider parts of his complaint.

40. We would ask that Mr H to come back to us promptly if he is unable to proceed with legal action or if there are outstanding outcomes. This is because we are unable to investigate complaints brought to us 12 months after someone has become aware of the problem. We can put this time limit to one side if we think there is a good reason to do so and would consider any legal advice or action sought.

41. Overall, we consider it is reasonable for Mr H to explore a potential legal claim. We will therefore close Mr H’s complaint at this time.

Conclusion

42. We were sorry to hear of Mr H’s experience and the ongoing impact that this has had on them and thank him for bringing his concerns to our attention.

1. We have carefully considered Mr H’s complaint about East Suffolk and North Essex NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust). We were saddened to hear of the events Mr H complains about, how he continues to deal with these issues and how the worry of these issues being repeated continues to impact his life.

2. We have decided not to take further action at this time because we consider it is reasonable for Mr H to explore taking legal action on the issues he brought to us. We explain the reasons for this and when Mr H can come back to us below.

3. We consider Mr H’s concerns about the surgery in 2021 fall outside of our one-year time limit. These may be able to be considered as part of a legal claim, as the timescales for this are different to ours. However, we would not be able to look at these events should Mr H wish to return to us after exploring potential legal action.