Shoulder dystocia is when the baby’s head has been born but one of the shoulders becomes stuck behind the mother’s pelvic bone, preventing the birth of the baby’s body.

There can be significant perinatal morbidity and mortality associated with the condition. Maternal morbidity is increased, particularly the incidence of postpartum haemorrhage (11%) as well as severe perineal tears (3.8%).

Brachial plexus injury (BPI) is one of the most important neonatal complications of shoulder dystocia, complicating 2.3–16% of such deliveries. It is the third most litigated condition in the UK.

The revised Green-top Guideline on managing shoulder dystocia recognises that training can reduce preventable injury and recommends that there should be annual, multi-professional training for all maternity staff using manoeuvres demonstrated and practiced on a high fidelity mannequin.

The guidelines refer to the largest trial of simulated shoulder dystocia which found that before training, only 43% of midwives and doctors could successfully manage a severe shoulder dystocia simulation within five minutes. Three weeks after a 40 minute simulation training session, 83% of staff were able to successfully complete the delivery.

Routine traction in an axial direction can be used to diagnose shoulder dystocia state the guidelines, but downward traction on the fetal head should be avoided in the management of all births because it has been associated with increased risk of BPI.

The revised guidelines also include evidence from a recent study about the duration of shoulder dystocia and outcomes. A group from Hong Kong recently reported that in their study, there was a very low rate of hypoxic ischaemic injury if the head-to-body delivery time was less than 5 minutes.

It is important, therefore, to manage the problem as efficiently as possible to avoid hypoxic acidosis, and as carefully as possible to avoid unnecessary trauma, say the authors.

Tim Draycott, one of the guideline developers said:

“We hope this guideline will help improve the consistency of training so that we can improve outcomes for mothers and their babies.”

It has always been the case that claims can be made against insurance companies by families who have lost a relative suffering from asbestosis; but these claims have, until recently, been approached with caution as the law has not been very clear and insurance companies have maintained a strong position in defending themselves against allegations of negligent exposure.

The UK Supreme Court in its landmark ruling of 28^th March 2012 decided that the liability of an insurance company should arise at the time that the employee was exposed to the asbestosis, rather than at the time that the symptoms of asbestosis start to present.

This appeal to the Supreme Court arose as there are a number of families who seek to make claims on insurance policies that were in place for companies who allowed their employees to work alongside asbestos that date as far back as the 1940s. The judgment has been welcomed by the Association of British Insurers and the families of relatives as it has clarified a previously very ambiguous body of case law.

Asbestosis may seem like an archaic disease and something from employment past. However, around 2,500 people are diagnosed with the fatal disease every year. Despite the fact that Health & Safety measures have improved and awareness is undoubtedly heightened, the symptoms of asbestosis can take many years to develop and it is for this reason that these devastating diagnoses are still being made.

The legal battle taken on by families against large insurance companies began nearly six years ago and was vehemently defended by some insurers who asked the court to find in their favour in order to allow them to side-step making large compensation payment to the 5,000 families who lose a relative each year following their exposure to asbestos. This means that a large number of those suffering this deadly disease will not have lived long enough to see the long-awaited outcome the case put before the Supreme Court against the insurers.

Specialist lawyers in the field have estimated the likely compensation payout at the conclusion of an asbestosis claim could range between £65,000 to several million pounds. This range in value will be controlled by the individual circumstances of the claim brought.

The Supreme Court ruling has brought clarity to the law and comfort to the families living with asbestosis and those who have yet to discover that a relative is suffering as a result of exposure to asbestos in the work place.

This ruling is a victory for those families who are delighted that the law has upheld their moral battle to pursue justice on behalf of those negligently exposed to asbestos who would otherwise be unable to guarantee security for the families that they leave behind.

While many solicitors are continuing to advertise the fact that they are dealing with the cases we are yet to see any case being decided by the courts in England & Wales resulting in a decided case.

We are pursuing such cases as breach of contract against the hospitals that carried out the operations on the recipient of the implants. However in addition to a claim for breach of contact we are also considering action against other relevant parties.

As a general rule a consumers legal rights are against the person that sold them the defective product under an old legal principle of “privity of contract”. That said if the PIP implants were funded by a credit agreement or a credit card this may give rise to a claim against the finance provider or the credit card company.

If a recipient of PIP implants has funded their operation with finance or a credit card then you may be able to pursue a claim against the finance provider also under section 75 Consumer Credit Act 1974. The cash price of the product must be over £100.00 but no more than £30’000.00 and if this criteria is met then a finance provider becomes jointly and severally liable with the hospital for the faulty goods under a contract of sale. Such procedure may be particularly helpful where for instance the hospital is nor trading, has no insurance or simply cannot be traced.

We consider ourselves to be one of the leading law practices dealing with these claims for compensation. We can lend a sympathetic ear to offer professional advice to help you. We can pursue a claim to compensate you and also to cover the cost of corrective surgery.

We have a number of funding options. Our no fee win or lose funding agreements mean your claim will cost you nothing.

Should you require further advice or simply a general chat please do not hesitate to contact our Nathan J Hennah.

The NHS have issued some guidance in the signs to look for which may raise concern and if you have any of the following signs you should contact the hospital that carried out your breast augmentation or you general practitioner (GP).

• lumpiness of the breast
• lumpiness or swelling in the area around the breast
• change in shape of the breast
• deflation of the breast
• redness
• tenderness of the breast
• swelling of the breast
• pain or sensitivity

We are now dealing with a number of PIP cases and will shortly be making an application to the Court for a group litigation order.  If you have concerns about your PIP implants you should obtain your notes and records from your health care provider.  This is something that we can do for you and thereafter investigate if you have merit in making a claim.  Most private clinics and hospitals have now written to all patients but you should not be alarmed if this is not the case.

Women who received a PIP implant from the NHS will be contacted to let them know they have one.

If you are worried, you should book a consultation with your specialist or GP. They will offer clinical advice on the best way forward. This could include an examination using scans, such as MRI, to look for any signs that the implant may have ruptured.

The NHS will support removal and replacement of PIP implants if a woman and her doctor decide that it is the right thing to do. The secretary of state has made clear that patients’ concerns must be put first.

A number of private clinics have now publicly said that they will replace PIP implants free of charge.  This does not however prevent you making a compensation claim. The following private clinics have said they will replace PIP implants free if clinically necessary:

• BMI Healthcare
• HCA International
• Holly House
• Highgate Hospitals
• Make Yourself Amazing/MYA Cosmetic Surgery
• Nuffield Healthcare
• Ramsay Health Care
• Spire Healthcare

The Transform medical group has said it will remove the implants free for its patients who had them fitted since 2001 and The Hospital Group said it would offer free removal to patients it operated on from 2001-2009; both will charge for replacements.

If you have any concerns you should of course contact you GP or the clinic/hospital where your operation was carried out but we can assist you in obtaining your medical records and assessing the merits of a claim. 

We have a number of funding options available including NO Win–No Fee (a Conditional Fee Agreement) and in the event of wining your claim you will retain all of your compensation.

Please feel free to contact our Mr. Nathan J Hennah for a free consultation. 

handing out personal injury claim leaflets in and around the city.

This is a part time position, paying £10 per hour

No knowledge of the business is required, a full briefing

will be given and a branded uniform provided.

Contact Steve on: steves@hbjwlaw.co.uk

PIP Impants were manufactured by the PIP implant company based in France between 2001 and 2010 and all batch numbers are affected. The main problem with the French Implants and which has caused global concern is that the implants contained industrial silicone rather than medical-grade fillers. It is the concern that the implants may be more prone to rupture and leakage.

The Medicines & Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) have issued a statement that there is a medical device alert on silicone gel filled breasts implants manufactured by Poly Implant Prothese (PIP). All models and lot numbers have been identified as requiring immediate action. At present there has not been a court case where the issue of such devices have been considered by the court but we are starting to prepare to issue letters of claim to the manufacturer of the products and also the hospital that have used such devices in surgery.

A number of private hospitals in the United kingdom have used such products and they include;

• Harley Medical Group.
• Surgicare Medical Group.
• Transform Medical Group.
• Newlook Medical Group.

You can follow the links on the above to the web sites of the relevant Health care providers to view the official statements.

Most implants are removed or replaced after 10 to 15 years so it is likely that if such a surgical device was used during your operation you would have expected for them to be removed at some stage. There is at present no expert evidence to show what if any risks are associated with PIP implants however the governments expert committee has suggested that the NHS should consider the removal of PIP implants and that all private hospital should follow suit. You can follow the links above to consider the statements of the Healthcare providers that use PIP implants.

The NHS intend to contact all patients that received PIP implants through the NHS and we understand that this process is being replicated across the private sector. More than 300’000 PIP implants have been sold across 65 countries throughout the period of manufacture. While European Countries were a large purchaser more than half of the implants were sold to South American Countries.

If you had PIP implants either through the NHS or through a Private Hospital please feel free to contact us to discuss your concerns. In addition the MHRA have issued advice to General Practitioners and all Healthcare providers to assist patients.

Nathan Hennah is able to provide free consultation to help.

E: andrewc@hbjwlaw.co.uk

M: 07879 441 676 T: 01633 262 848

We play a pivotal role in the rehabilitation of clients who have been injured and have a team of physiotherapist’s, consultants and professors who are used in this process.  Our primary aim is to secure a fair compensation package and to assist in their recovery both physically and mentally.

Our primary role is to educate members of the public of their rights and entitlements at a time when the government has severely curtailed funding options for injured parties.  We are happy to champion the cause of those members of the public who do not have the resources to fund claims against large insurance companies.  We are happy to act for clients on a no win no fee basis whereby they recover 100% of any compensation recovered.

Each case form the outset is assessed by an experienced claims handler who will be a qualified solicitor of at least 15 years’ experience. We do not expect people to attend our offices.  We now have a fleet of vehicles which transport clients to and from our offices if necessary and to and from medical appointments all free of charge.  We are happy to conduct interviews at home.  Experience has dictated that people are more relaxed in their home environment as some find the attending of solicitors offices a forbidding experience.

We are keen to relax clients, to tell them of their rights and entitlements and to take away the stresses and strains of pursuing a claim by doing all the work for them. We are happy to put back into communities advice free of charge and in this context hold regular clinics in clubs throughout South Wales where members are entitled to free advice on a wide ranging array of legal subjects.