LAWYERS were the only winners after a Blackpool man lost an eight-year compensation fight for the loss of his leg following heart surgery.
London's Appeal Court on Monday (March 22) ruled that neither Blackpool Victoria Hospital nor Guy's Hospital, London, were to blame for 61-year-old Derek Brown's leg amputation in 1990.
Mr Brown's wife, Eunice, said: "We're devastated. We just don't understand the decision at all - lawyers and specialists told us we had a good case.
"The simple fact is that Derek went in for a heart bypass and he came out losing a leg and no-one can tell me it was just one of those things. You lose your faith in hospitals after something like this. At the end of the day we're the losers and the only ones who've benefited are the judges and lawyers."
Former decorator Mr Brown's troubles started with two heart attacks in the 1980s which led to a quadruple heart bypass at Guy's Hospital in 1990.
Mr Brown, of Seafield Road, was sent home on the train from Guy's to Blackpool, a stressful journey during which a deep vein thrombosis developed in his leg.
Victoria Hospital gave him an anti-coagulant drug to which he had a rare sensitivity, said Lord Justice Beldam, and as a result the limb developed gangrene and had to be cut off.
A High Court judge last year ruled that Mr Brown had been negligently treated in some respects at Victoria, but that "such negligence had not caused or contributed to the loss of his leg."
Guy's admitted it should not have discharged Mr Brown with a chest infection, but Mr Brown's legal team this week argued further, that Guy's should never have allowed the train journey, saying it had led to the amputation. But Appeal Court lord justices Beldam, Morritt and Mantell ruled that the journey was not to blame.
Mr Brown, who has been wheelchair-bound, now manages with a false leg but is still suffering long-term effects from his trauma, said his wife. The couple, who brought up three children and formerly ran a guest house, now have to struggle on without the financial help which could have eased their retirement.
Converted for the new archive on 14 July 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article