Hodge Jones & Allen

Hodge Jones & Allen achieves groundbreaking settlement for Camden resident

 

14th April 2010

 

Leading clinical negligence lawyers, Hodge Jones & Allen have today agreed a £4.7 million High Court settlement on behalf of Ryan St George, aged 42, who was left brain damaged as a result of negligence by HMP Brixton. The settlement follows an unsuccessful appeal by the Home office which the Court of Appeal rejected in October 2008.

 

Ryan was committed to HMP Brixton on 29 October 1997 for a minor offence where he received a very short custodial sentence. He was 29 years old at the time. On arrival, he was routinely screened, and passed as healthy, by the healthcare staff who noted his history of alcohol and drug abuse and that he had a history of fits. Ryan was provided with a bottom bunk but was subsequently moved to a top bunk by prison staff.

 

On 3 November 1997, at 6.00pm Ryan was sitting on his bunk when he suffered an epileptic fit and fell, striking his head on the concrete floor resulting in a large open wound to his head. The medical officer on duty did not attend but advised that Ryan should be given Diazepam which had no measurable effect.

 

At 6.30pm the duty doctor was called. Status epilepticus - a continuous state of epileptic seizure - was subsequently diagnosed and an ambulance called at 6.39pm. When the ambulance arrived at HMP Brixton at 6.47pm it was delayed entry due to a faulty gate and also a broken down vehicle was obstructing access. The paramedics eventually reached Ryan at 6.57pm finding him unconscious, fitting and with a visible head wound.

 

The Paramedics were ready to leave at 7.12pm but they were further delayed by five minutes when the wardens each declined to act as escort. The ambulance eventually left the prison at 7.17pm. The ambulance arrived at King’s Hospital at 7.25pm and Ryan’s fitting was brought under control at 7.45pm.

 

In October 2007, the High Court held that Ryan Stafford St George was given a top bunk by staff at HMP Brixton. He suffered a fit as a result of withdrawing from alcohol and benzodiazepines and this fit caused the fall from the top bunk. The duty doctor should have made his way to the claimant more or less immediately having been informed of the head injury and its mechanism. The head injury was the trigger for the status epilepticus.

 

The court also found that the prison and healthcare staff did not maintain an adequate airway and oxygen was not administered. The duty doctor should have immediately realised an ambulance was required, not after five minutes assessing the scene. Had there not been a series of delays Ryan would have reached hospital twenty minutes earlier.  Both parties’ experts were in agreement that time was essential in this case.

 

Ryan’s brain damage has left him gravely and permanently disabled. He is totally dependant on others for all aspects of his care, doubly incontinent and unable to communicate. He requires 24 hour care for the remainder of his life and his life expectancy has been significantly reduced.

 

Today’s settlement of £4.7 million will provide for Ryan’s long term care and includes annual periodical payments for rent - believed to be the first time periodical payments have been used in this way. Ryan was represented throughout his case by solicitors Hodge Jones & Allen and David Pittaway QC and Jane Tracy Forster from Hailsham Chambers.

 

Commenting on the case, Jacqui Hayat, Partner, Hodge Jones & Allen LLP who represented Ryan, said:

 

“At last this is justice for Ryan, who, after a very long haul can now receive proper compensation for his devastating injuries. The case is thought to be groundbreaking, in that it is believed to be the first case where annual periodical payments have been used to pay rent. This has many advantages because it means Ryan can rent near his devoted family and will continue to receive the rental payments for life. It is also a sensible arrangement for the Defendant, where life expectancy cannot be agreed and is now a solution expected to be followed in many cases where the life expectancy views of the parties are poles apart.”