Our client had large breasts which became
particularly troublesome after the birth of her son when she
started to have an increase in back pain. She consulted her GP who
referred her for breast reduction surgery.
She underwent surgery and was under the clear
impression that she would have her nipples moved but that they
would remain attached and would be re-positioned when her breast
reduction was performed.
When she recovered after her anaesthetic she
discovered that she had a free nipple graft and was also surprised
to learn that rather than have sutures she had staples to the wound
site. When she challenged her consultant she was told that he
preferred to do both free nipple grafts and apply staples; that
were his personal preference.
Our client realised some time after that the
results were not as she had hoped. Her complaints were that she
thought that the nipples had been placed far too high and they
tended to ride above her bra. She was also concerned that the
areolae especially on the right side appeared to be unnatural.
She was under the impression that she could
have remedial treatment until September 1998 when she was assessed
prior to surgery and was told remedial treatment was not possible
and that she would be worse off after the operation.
Our client instructed the firm in July 2000,
and an expert was instructed to prepare a report on liability. A
Letter of Claim was sent to the Defendants in November 2000. The
Defendants responded in September 2001, denying liability.
Just before proceedings were issued the
Defendants made a further Part 36 Offer to settle the case for
£12,000.00 plus reasonable costs which our client was happy to
accept. This provided her with the funds to seek correction
surgery.
Jacqui Hayat
Hodge Jones & Allen