Supporting Diabetic Clients Through Personal Injury Claims

Hopkins Solicitors have expertise in working with Diabetic clients who suffer from conditions such as, diabetic retinopathy, Charcot foot or ulcers which require timely diagnosis and referral to specialist diabetic clinics to prevent severe complications. Delays in treatment or referral can exacerbate these conditions, leading to vision loss, deformities or amputations. Claims in this area often involve complex causation issues, as the clients typically have pre-existing health risks. The legal framework governing such claims includes the standard of care for medical practitioners, causation principles and the applicability of indemnity schemes for clinical negligence, plus limitation timeframes for pursuing such claims.

Medical practitioners owe a duty of care to their patients, which includes diagnosing and treating conditions in a timely manner. In cases of delayed treatment or diagnosis, the claimant must establish that the practitioner breached this duty by failing to act in accordance with the standards of a reasonably competent professional in the same field.

In cases of delayed treatment for diabetic clients, the breach of duty often arises from a failure to diagnose or refer the patient to a specialist in a timely manner. For example, a general practitioner (GP) who fails to recognise the signs of Charcot foot or severe ulcers, or delays advising a patient of test results confirming diabetes, may be found to have breached their duty of care. The standard of care requires practitioners to act with the skill and diligence expected of a reasonably competent professional in their field.

Causation is often the most contentious issue in clinical negligence claims involving delayed treatment. The claimant must prove that the delay caused additional harm, such as the progression of Charcot foot to a stage requiring amputation or a delay with managing known diabetes to prevent the onset of diabetic retinopathy. This requires distinguishing between harm caused by the natural progression of the condition and harm attributable to the delay. For divisible injuries, such as ulcers that worsen over time, the defendant is liable only for the additional harm caused by their negligence. Expert evidence is critical in this context to establish the timing and cause of the injury and to predict how the condition would have progressed in any event in the absence of negligence against what has happened.

Causation (harm or damage) is a critical element in clinical negligence claims. The claimant must demonstrate that the delay in treatment or referral caused additional harm beyond the natural progression of their pre-existing condition. This involves distinguishing between divisible injuries (where harm worsens with exposure to a harmful cause) and indivisible injuries (where harm does not worsen).

Expert evidence is essential in establishing causation and the extent of harm caused by delayed treatment. In cases involving diabetic clients, evidence may be required from specialists in vascular surgery, ophthalmology, diabetology and endocrinology to determine the probable progression of the condition and the impact of the delay. To value cases where causation can be proved we may need to progress to look to obtain expert evidence from care experts, architects, podiatrists, employment and prosthetic experts too to prove costs of adapting or moving homes if required, support and care required in the future with daily living changes to employment required and the projection of careers and wage increase prospects or career change and studying costs.

The CNSGP covers clinical negligence liabilities for GP practices occurring on or after 1 April 2019. For claims involving negligence spanning this date, it is essential to establish the exact date of treatment to determine whether the claim falls within the scope of the scheme. If the treatment occurred before this date but the harm manifested later, the claim may fall outside the scheme’s scope, requiring consideration of alternative indemnity arrangements.

There are time limits to pursue cases for clinical negligence, we will consider date of knowledge of possible negligence with clients to determine limitation dates which generally is 3 years from the date of knowledge, although there are exceptions where the patient has later passed away or if they do not have capacity. All of the circumstances will be assessed.

Pursuing clinical negligence claims for diabetic clients involves several practical challenges, including:

• Proving causation in the context of pre-existing conditions.
• Securing expert evidence from multiple disciplines to establish the impact of the delay.
• Navigating the complexities of indemnity schemes to determine liability.

To address these challenges, Hopkins solicitors:

• Obtain detailed medical records and expert reports to establish causation and quantify damages.
• Identify and engage specialists with expertise in diabetes management and related fields.
• Carefully analyse the timeline of events to determine the applicable indemnity scheme and ensure compliance with procedural requirements.

Claims for delayed treatment or referral of diabetic clients require a thorough understanding of the standard of care, causation principles and the role of expert evidence. Establishing liability often hinges on proving that the delay caused additional harm beyond the natural progression of the condition. Hopkins solicitors have experience in navigating the complexities of these diabetic issue claims as well as the indemnity schemes and have the experience to obtain secure robust expert evidence to support their clients’ claims. By addressing these challenges effectively, we help our diabetic clients obtain the compensation they deserve for the harm caused by clinical negligence.

If you believe you are a victim of delayed treatment or referral for a condition caused by diabetes and would like to discuss making a claim, please click the “Request a Callback” button or give us a call on 01623 468 468.