Clinical Negligence Claim Following Delayed Treatment of Heart Attack

In the early hours of 10 December 2021, Mr B experienced severe chest and arm pain and called an ambulance. Paramedics took approximately 90 minutes to arrive and carried out an initial ECG before transporting him to the Hospital. He arrived at the Emergency Department at around 8:30am, where a provisional diagnosis of acute coronary syndrome was made.

Despite ongoing severe pain and clear cardiac symptoms, there were delays in further assessment and escalation. A repeat ECG was not carried out at an appropriate stage, and Mr B waited several hours before being reviewed by cardiology. When a further ECG was eventually performed, it showed changes consistent with a ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), and he was taken for emergency angioplasty.

Medical evidence confirmed that the delay in diagnosis and treatment led to extensive damage to Mr B’s heart muscle. An echocardiogram later revealed severe left ventricular systolic dysfunction, leaving him with ongoing heart failure. With timely intervention, the extent of this damage could have been significantly reduced. Mr B now requires a pacemaker device fitted for the rest of his life.

The legal argument focused on the failure to carry out repeat ECGs, delays in escalation, and the lack of timely cardiology intervention despite clear warning signs. As a result of these breaches of duty, Mr B suffered avoidable pain and permanent, life-changing injury.

The allegations of negligence were set out against the Trust, who carried out their own investigation into Mr B’s treatment. The Trust made formal admissions of negligence in failing to carry out further assessment and refer Mr B to the crisis assessment and treatment team at 10:30am. As a result, opportunities were missed to refer Mr B to the Cardiology team, who would have identified the extent of his ST-elevation myocardial infarction much sooner. Following this, it was admitted that but for the admitted negligence, PCI intervention would have been undertaken by 11.30am hours, which two hours sooner than when it did take place at 1:30pm, and Mr B would have avoided the extent of the left ventricular damage and functional deficit that he has sustained.

Expert evidence was obtained on Mr B’s condition & prognosis from an independent Cardiologist, who set out the extent of the damage that Mr B had sustained as a result of the admitted negligence. The expert evidence was disclosed to the Trust’s representatives to review, and the Trust obtained their own expert evidence. Following the legal argument and strong evidence in support of Mr B’s claim, and a long period of settlement negotiations, the Trust agreed to pay £123,500 in compensation to Mr B to account for his injuries, and to ensure that he can afford to pay for the care he needs, both now and in the future.