A practice in the Walsall area

3. Mr B complains about aspects of care and treatment he received from the Practice between June 2023 and July 2024, when he was suffering with groin pain.

4. Mr B said the Practice failed to provide him with appropriate care to identify the source and treat his groin pain.

5. Mr B said the Practice wasted time investigating his condition and delayed access to specialist advice on pain management. He said that because of this he was in pain for longer than necessary and had a lower quality of life. He was unable to attend family activities, and he was less able to care for his father.

6. Mr B is looking for service improvements, and an apology. He is also looking for financial remedy.

7. Mr B attended the Practice in July 2023 complaining of groin pain. The Practice arranged for him to have a blood test done during August.

8. In September 2023, Mr B attended the Practice again. His medical records show the Practice recorded his groin pain as ongoing and having started during the Covid-19 lockdown in 2020.

9. In October 2023, the Practice referred Mr B to the musculoskeletal (MSK) team to investigate his groin pain. He then had two telephone consultations, where he discussed pain medication with the Practice. The musculoskeletal clinic provides specialised assessment, diagnosis and treatment for conditions affecting, joints, muscles, bones and tendons, including back pain, arthritis and sports injuries.

10. In January 2024, Mr B’s medical records say he saw a physiotherapist who ruled out a musculoskeletal cause for his groin pain.

11. In January 2024, the Practice referred Mr B to the musculoskeletal (MSK) team a second time.

Mr B said the Practice failed to provide him with appropriate care to identify the source and treat his groin pain.

13. 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 B to understand the reasons why he could not do so. We have also considered the time the organisation has taken to respond to Mr B.

14. Mr B had already been suffering from groin pain for three years, when he raised his groin pain with the Practice in July 2023. He told us the pain was severe and impacted his day-to-day life. We have also seen evidence of this in his medical records. Considering the severity and impact of the pain in his life we believe Mr B had reason to complain from 18 January 2024, at the earliest.

15. For his complaint to be within the 12-month time limit, he should have brought his complaint to us by 18 January 2025. Mr B brought his complaint to us on 5 June 2025. The complaint is five months out of date.

16. Mr B complained to the Practice on 10 July 2024. The Practice responded to Mr B on 9 September 2024.

17. Local resolution took two months to complete. He then brought his complaint to us in June 2025. This was eight months after he received the Practice response.

18. Mr B told us the delay between receiving the reply from the Practice and bringing his complaint to us was because he was the sole carer for father. He said on many occasions his life was determined by what support his father required.

19. We recognise that Mr B’s pain was debilitating and he was also caring for his disabled father during this time. He told us he was responsible for shopping, cooking, helping his father move around the house, ensuring he took his medication and driving him to medical appointments. We do not underestimate how challenging this would have been for him.

20. During the eight months between complaining to the Practice and bringing his complaint to the PHSO, we have seen Mr B remained in contact with the Practice. He attended appointments when needed, as well as managing his pain and caring for his father.

21. We believe this suggests Mr B was able to bring his complaint to us sooner.

22. We understand chronic pain is very difficult to live with and, alongside his caring responsibilities, it has had a significant impact on Mr B. We are not satisfied Mr B has provided us with sufficient reason to put our time consideration to one side. We will not consider this case further.

1. We have carefully considered Mr B’s complaint about a Practice in the Walsall Metropolitan area (the Practice). We were very sorry to hear about the issues around his chronic pain and the impact this had on him. We recognise this was a very challenging time for him.

2. Having considered all the evidence, we have decided the complaint falls outside of our time limit. We have decided there is no good reason for us to put our time limit aside to consider it further.