2 years on and no cheque. I'm gonna chase for the interest now!

Haven't visited this thread for a while! Woah! - some haters out there! Patients are consumers of the NHS - they've paid for it, so they deserve it's best. I've trained for years in what I do, and whilst each patient is different, we learn what to do from experience and scientific studies. What I posted is based on both, but is always tailored to the person in front of you. There are various treatments we know work, and many that we know make no difference when compared to placebo. people selling cures for back pain may believe they work - but I wait until it's put through scientific study before I recommend it to my patients, especially when they are paying for it (I recommend patients consider TENS machines, accupuncture and manipulative therapies funded by themselves if they feel they need extra pain relief - I don't suggest these therapies speed up the cure rate - the evidence is that they don't) This sites about helping people navigate often bureaucratic systems better - whatever service they are consuming! - don't you guys have anything better to do! - you know who I mean.....

Alright Elusive One The 40 days starts when they get correct paperwork, so If they can say the signiture is significantly different to the one on file then I guess thats an: a) valid, and B) effective delaying tactic. To be safe I'd send another S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) and cheque and maybe enclose a photocopy of a driving license of similar with a signiture matching the one on the form. That starts your 40 days right thar. Cheers!

Hi Dori2o, It sounds like you have hit an impasse. Your knee pain sounds disproportionate to the apparent scan / scope findings, and it's obviously this rather than the possible ACL rupture that is limiting your ability to work. It may be worth discussing other pain management strategies (Neuromodulators, Cognitive Behavioural Therapy, Complimentary Therapies ect.) with your GP to see if your overal functional state rather than just the level of pain, could be improved. Function is the key, and although surgery may play a part in improving function, relying on this alone can be slow and of limited value (I speak as an ex orthopaedic surgeon turned GP). The orthopods are buggering you about, so seek help elsewhere too (repeat after me "multidisciplinary team care" - that'll scare your GP!) Hope this helps!

Hi Cymraeg as a GP working in Wales I'd be very suprised if the prospect of "kicking certain procedures intoo action" made any difference to your Mums diagnosis and treatment from the Doctors point of view - it is not them that have to spend the money or do the work in any case! It strikes me that there may be some uncertainty in the diagnosis itself - not all confusion is dementia. Other disorders - say an infection or other acute and time limited illness causing an acute confusional state (also known as delerium), and other mental health problems such as depression, anxiety or bipolar disorder - can cause periods of intermittent confusion such as your mum may be having (you mention good and bad days quite a lot). Dementia is, by definition, chronic and largely irreversible, but can also fluctuate. From the point of view of treatment and safety it seems most things that should be done are being considered or have been done - ie reviewing environment, care and support etc. The apparent cognitive improvemnets with Aricept etc are small, and most of the benefit is control of agitation etc. So many specialists do not prescribe such drugs automatically, and in any case they are all supposed to follow NICE guidaelines. So this may be why no specific therapy has been introduced. Otherwise its often a question of managing risk factors such as blood pressure and so on to reduce the risk of mini-strokes further impairing brain function. I hope you continue to support your mum so sucessfully and passionately. The best looked after patients are the ones with concerned and active relatives because otherwise problems aren't always picked up or chased up. Pob Lwc!

Hi All. I have settled 4 claims already against Clydesdale, Halifax, MBNA and Morgan Stanley, but I just noticed some bank charges I'd missed on my HSBC Joint account, which has been generally run pretty tight, but got overdawn on two occassions when money was late coming in following a change of jobs - as a junior doctor I had to change employer every 6 monhts and sometimes the payroll people mess up the bank details. £40 for 1 3 day OD, and £36 for another. Ludicrous and disproportianate as usual. I'm pretty certain I asked for a refund at the time and was refused, so now I've sent off another PA, with LBA to follow in 2 weeks. I note that we are advised not to use MCOL anymore - can someone point me in the direction of the new guidance? thanks. I know it's just a small claim, but they just take the **** sometimes.

It sounds like you had a tough break and unsympathetic managers. I too have had problems with NHS management in my 11 years working for them so I can sympathise with your comment: However I'd also say I've worked in enlightened and well managed trusts and smaller organisations within the NHS, and to generalise in this way is unhelpful and unfair to the well managed parts of the NHS. Many line managers in the NHS have had little, if any, formal management training and so are out of their depth, which often leads on to bullying behaviour. If this is confronted then those with formal training (usually at chief exec level and just below) have to get involved and sort it out fairly. So I'd say work for the NHS but join a union (mine was excellent when I needed them), and call them if your boss is making your life difficult. Hope everything works out better for you in your new role!

Now I've had a letter saying they will pay out the ful ammount without interest if I settle before the test case - which could be years. Its only gona be £100 of interest so I think I'd be best off taking the money and running! Thanks for all your advice guys!

Dear Roger I am a GP and you raise some valid and interesting points. I think you need to sort out a long term plan with your own GP rather than a locum to sort out what you should be taking and what you shouldn't. If you are convinced of the need for a particular brand of omeprazole then discuss a branded prescription with your GP, and get it on repeat. You could make the convincing points to him that you made in your above post (you might even suggest he reads this thread!) I totally agree that someone with persistant symptoms for 15 years needs occasional investigation for helicobacter infection, ulcers etc every so often - this may be endoscopy or just blood or stool tests for helicobacter antigen. As a GP I can thoroughly understand the reluctance of locum doctors to issue prescriptions for zopiclone - its a rubbish product with high addictive potential, rapid development of tolerance and frequently used as a drug of abuse. I appreciate you have been using it for a long time and don't sleep without it - I would have warned you at the start that that would happen! I think you need to talk to your GP about why you need it regularly and possibly agree a withdrawal program. If it was on formal repeat, or a plan was documented in your notes for formal withdrawal, your prescribing issues would be avoided. You need to sort out with you GP a specific dose aregimen nd repeat prescription to supply that dose and then stick to that dose rather than overusing - repeat prescriptions for 14 days worth of drugs issued every 10 days will make everyone suspicious - that's not getting it early every time but repeated overuse of a regular prescription - ie it should still be 14 days after the last one each time if you use them as prescribed even if you get it early - you will get it early 14 days after the last issue every time. We know people take more, or sell them on, or stockpile for suicide attempts etc, etc. We have a duty to you the patient, but also to the community who fund the treatment, to ensure prescription drugs are not abused. I suspect there is a suspicion that this is what you are doing by the GPs in your practice. you need to have an open and frank discussion about this - but you may not get everything you want - that's compromise! The NHS is there to look after the health of the whole community. It is not a free source of medicines just because you want them. I agree with comments regarding the role of doctors as gatekeepers to prescription drugs - just look at other countries with less regulation and you will see massive innapropriate use and abuse of meds like dihydrocodeine, benzodiazepines, antibiotics etc. i think that you need a more holistic approach rather than just hoping a pil will make it all better. it rarely will!

Dear Jase Your friend has to prove that the first doctor was negligent, not simply that another doctor disagreed with his diagnosis and management later on. To do this you would need to show that the first doctor's actions were not in accordance with a "reasonable body of medical opinion". This may be hard to do. His defence team would only have to show that some other consultants would have made the same diagnosis / treatment plan to strike out the claim right there, at negligence, without any regard to causation. JohnHill007's Comments are helpful regarding funding for claims, but I suspect his case was clearer cut than many on the site, so be wary of commiting too much of your own funds without sound clinical advice from experienced medicolegal lawyers or doctors. If I were you I would do as he suggests re checking insurance policies, and then look for a "no win no fee" type legal firm to get advice if you are keen to proceed. If you want my opinion I would need a lot more info - you can PM me if you want to keep it private. Please click me scales (bottom left) if I have been helpful!

Hi Twaddle I'm sorry to hear about your OH troubled times with his back. I wonder if he needs to see the pain team rather than more orthopaedic surgeons. I often find that the holistic approach taken by some pain teams is far more helpful than a "broken?" - "operate and try to fix" approach of orthopaedic surgeons. They may look at functional rehabilitation, cognitive behavioural therapy and other psychosocial interventions to at least help him deal with his disablities and symptoms more effectively, as well as other possible pain relief measures such as nerve blocks etc. If one GP in your practice is unhelpful try seeing other GPs who may have different strengths, or attitudes. For more detail see my comments in Sandbag's thread Chronic Back pain elsewhere in this forum. Hope this helps Pliz click on my scales if you think i'm either useful or just sexy.......

Hi Damselfish, Thanks for your detailed reply to my first post. I think you would have a good chance of showing negligence on the part of a GP who saw someone with respiritory symptoms 6 times and didn't check for atypical pneumonia or order a chest x-ray. I think your GP sounds negligent and possibly a bit lazy! I'm glad to hear you are getting better and making progress with treating these problems. I appreciate your comment on the preexisting symptoms relating to thyroid / adrenal disease - Unfortunately I suspect that these would scupper your chances of proving causation for the bulk of your symptoms, and so your chances of any real payout, but I'm not a medicolegal lawyer so you could take advice if you change your mind about legal action. My comments about causation are important as this is where most medicolegal cases fail, not on the proof of negligence. Just because the doctor did something "bad" does not mean you will get a payoff. There has to be a clear negative consequence of the negligent action caused largely or solely by that action. I'm not sure you would be able to prove this " on the balance of probabilities", but your legal advisors may see this differently. If you look at the comments about succesful cases posted above you can see that the disability or problems caused by the negligence are clearly and demonstrably linked to the negligent act - ie they can show that a timely diagnosis or better plan of management would have averted those consequences. This is where I suspect you may struggle. Both you and Bally35 have picked up on the comment I made about the so called "sick role" and I fear I may have upset you both with it's use, which was not my intent. Medicolegal lawyers and expert witnesses will often drag this concept in to trials and cause much upset and offence, so I was hoping to warn you of that possibility before you commenced legal action. The concept is overapplied by doctors and lawyers, and sounds very uncaring, but it is not invalid - I suspect most doctors have seen people get better suprisingly quickly once they no longer had anything to gain by remaining ill - some patients are suprised by it too! I don't think this is usually concious malingering (although it sometimes can be!), but all illness has a psychosocial component, often subconcious and at odds with our concious desire to get well. To neglect the psychosocial aspect of chronic illness is to miss the chance to treat one of the major causes of that illness and so do your patient a disservice. This is not arrogance but practical and holistic medicine. I was not applying it to you, Damselfish - It is an issue that I would only raise with patients I knew well from face to face contact - but others may. I don't think it is helpful or sensible to hope that they will not, and I think people should be prepared for this as lawyers fight dirty. Bally35: I dont agree that we are taught arrogance at medical school, but I do agree that there are arrogant doctors, (just as there are arrogant lawyers, bankers, hairdressers, footballers, or if you like just arrogant people), and if they are used as role models then I suppose this perpetuates the behaviour - it's a line you walk between apparent confidence (like not checking information in front of the patient to preserve your aura of omniscience, but checking it later in private), and foolhardy bravado (like not checking at all). Medicine is full of uncertainty and many decisions are not 99% certain but 55% on to 45% against. The trick is to manage that uncertainty whilst maintaining the confidence of your patients who look upon your lack of certainty in different ways - some are pleased to be involved in sharing the uncertainty, but many are not. Telling which patients are which is really quite hard, even when trying conciously to do so. Get this wrong and you will seem indescisive, or arrogant. I would hope that re-reading my opening sentences about using the internet during a consultation would show that I am not afraid to show my humility and lack of omniscience in front of my patients! Witholding information is another moral minefield, and one where it is easy to do the wrong thing, as breaking bad news is difficult and upsetting for both patient and doctor. I tend to err on the side of disclosure in situations like Bally35's (I am, after all, a Yorkshireman!), but I have upset patients (rarely), and relatives (more often) with this policy, so It is rarely clear cut. Older generations of doctors are more likely to conceal unpleasant facts, and I think the tendency is to share bad news more than we used to exactly because of cases like yours. I'm not sure that is much to do with the concept of the sick role, but it is still an important area to discuss frankly and openly, and its very helpful to hear the views from the patients side of the fence from a case where I am not personally involved and so not on the defensive! My intention on replying to posts in this forum is to offer impartial advice to people who feel let down by their own doctors. I'm not sticking up for bad doctors - check out other posts of mine and you will see I am critical of clear bad medicine. I hope to show sometimes that bad decisions may be made for good reasons, (often clearer in hindsight), but usually to help people resolve their problems, and also to explain things better - many doctors are very poor communicators or don't use the communication skills they do possess often enough (which IS arrogant, I agree!). So In summary, I hope this was helpful to you both, and I hope things continue to improve. Please do not be offended by what is meant to be a frank discussion of some complex moral and clinical issues, but remember these are my opinions and I'm a doctor not a lawyer. My views do not represent those of any organisation or professional body. Please click my scales if you find this helpful (at least on the balance of probabilities......)

Well Said Panthro. Free at the point of need = unlimited demand! why not ask yourself would i go to my GP / A&E / walk in centreif I had to pay £30 for an appointment. If the answer is no then you probably don't need it anyway. The NHS does very well when you consider that it can't raise prices to control demand, which is what the private sector does if demand outstrips supply. More praise for the NHS please! conflict of interest: MazzaB works for the NHS

I am a GP, so I can tell you how it feels from inside the room. Some cases take 5 minutes, but many take more - how do you deal properly with someone telling you they can't see the point in going on living, or that they haven't slept for a month in 10 minutes? Sometimes it takes 20 or 30 minutes. If you take less people moan that their GP doesn't listen, or they don't understand what has happend and come back the next day. Most surgeries i end up about 20-40 minutes over time - so if you want to be seen on time get an appointment near the start. Don't turn up late - If I'm running to time I then am forced late by having to see you during someone elses slot. Also if you are going to come with five seperate problems book a double appointment - most receptionists will understand this and the GP will thank you for it. tell your GP upfront that there are 2,3 or 4 things you want to deal with - it's more efficient as they can do all the scripts in one go, examine everything at once rather than getting you up and down from the couch or whatever. They also know they gotta go faster to keep to time! The problem is that demand is almost unlimited - the easier access gets the more it fills up with stuff that did not need to see a doctor - so many people have a "while I'm here" and "I just wanted to get it checked out attitude" to minor problems. Difficulty in access is the only tool available to stop this, so receptionists end up on the front line of health care rationing without really realising it! Access to any service outside of 9-5 is always going to be more expensive, access when you want it to a service with such unpredicatable demands on it as healthcare is often going to be pot luck. The only alternative is expensive redundacy in the system - doctors sitting idle waiting for patients to appear. With Efficiency the watchword in public services that's never going to happen in the public sector - you can pay to see a doctor instantly in London stations these days, but they charge £50 for 10 minutes last time I looked, probably more by now.

It sounds like you have had a very tough time of it. You seem to be having trouble getting a response from the doctors involved, despite help from your GP. The best thing to do is contact the Patient Liason Department at the hospital and talk to them. They can often arrange a meeting with the team that was responsible for your care in hospital, to give you a chance to be heard, and for them to explain things better to you. Scans and xrays are difficult to interpret sometimes, but the doctors looking after you should explain their uncertainty to you BEFORE suregry, not spring it on you afterwards - they need to learn from this to be less confident (or cocky?) next time. I hope you are better after what must have been a trying time. Click on my scales if this helps!

I'm a GP and I'd be pretty cross if I found out one of my colleagues took that sort of line. I suppose if a christian patient wanted advice about conflicts between their faith and their actions it might be OK to direct them to the church or other faith based organisations, but to spout that sort of stuff at someone who did not bring faith into the consultation is unhelpful, possibly dangerous to their mental wellbeing, and likely to drive the patient away from the practice as a source of help at a difficult time. I suspect the GMC might be interested in being told about it as well, so you could contact them to let them know. Heres a excerpt from the GMC duties of a Doctor, which states doctors MUST: Treat patients as individuals and respect their dignity Treat patients politely and considerately [*] Work in partnership with patients Listen to patients and respond to their concerns and preferences Give patients the information they want or need in a way they can understand Respect patients' right to reach decisions with you about their treatment and care Support patients in caring for themselves to improve and maintain their health [*] Be honest and open and act with integrity Never discriminate unfairly against patients or colleagues Never abuse your patients' trust in you or the public's trust in the profession. I'd say she potentially failed in most of the above duties of care in this case, and her attitude may lead her to continue to do so. I think the GMC should be involved to stop her harming patients who do not share her faith - If she were to do this to patients of other faiths then I suspect there would be more of an outcry. If you have no faith this is a choice as valid and noble as any other - see The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins for some backup if need be. If you have faith but have not found it helpful for your mental health (and the guilt inspired by some faiths is often terrible for peoples self esteem and wellbeing in my experience) then being told to seek god is actually insulting. If I told any patients whose political opinionswere different from mine to go and join the Labour Party or BNP I'd pretty soon be out of a job - why should faith be different? It smacks of cultism and recruiting the vulnerable in order to bost the GPs sense of value. It's just not on. Well done for being brave enough to post on a public forum about such a private matter. I hope you have by now obtained the help you require. Most GPs do better than this! I don't think that the quote about it being your word against hers will make much difference as the practice can look at the records of other patients she has seen and will probably find similar tales elsewhere to back yours up. Please click my scales if this is helpful

Hi. Miscarriage and Early pregnancy problems are always really upsetting for the mums. I suspect that O&G staff can get a bit blase about it because it is so common and such a large part of what we do, so we can lose sight of the tragedy it is to each family. If we got that upset each time we would all go mad and have to give up work,, but thats a reason not an excuse - we should try and be sensitive and I hope most of us are most of the time. 20% of pregnancies miscarry and 99.9% of Miscarriages are NOT PREVENTABLE. As said above they happen for a reason, and you can't and shouldn't try to stop them because the foetus is never going to be a live healthy baby. The positive here is that you are FERTILE as a couple and will probably concieve again without too much trouble. Too many couples don't get told any of this when in hospital - I know because I was nearly always the only one who told people when I was a junior doctor in O&G. The management of miscarriage is all about letting it complete so the womb is clear and healthy for another pregnancy later. The removal of "Products of conception" is done surgically by introducing a suction tube into the uterus and gently scraping all the way round. You can introduce a camera too, but that increases the risk of perforation - (bad news, may even lead to a hysterectomy in some cases )- so this is often not done. Sometimes product will be left behind. this is a well known complication and should be considered if any further bleeding or symptoms of infection occur. If it happens but is picked up I think you have to say the doctors have done their best in a tricky situation. The case for negligence arises really when they miss the incomplete evac. having been given a reason to look for it and not doing so. Yet again I think the problem in this forum is insensitivity and poor communication from hospital teams. I think in both cases a better explanation from a doctor who identified and responded to your concerns would have made this all make sense and left you feeling much less unhappy. I can't see much benefit in lawsuits here, but a complaint to the hospital patient liason service might help you understand what happened better, and might let the docs concened realise they need to go away and read "a communication handbook for doctors" by Peter Tate, or something similar. Finally I hope you have both recovered from your ordeals, and that you can maybe start to look forward rather than back once this is sorted out.

The electronic data records in all surgeries record who looks at what and when they did it. Most practices audit this to see if people are "browsing" medical records in a way not required to do their job - I have had to explain my access to files following such an audit in my surgery so I know it works. (I was responding to a telephone rquest as duty doctor so no appointment was recorded and I made no record in the notes) Ask your practice manager if they do this from time to time, and if they don't ask them why they don't take their data protection seriously - best of all put it in writing to them with a copy to the PCT (Primary Care Trust) who pay the bills..... If your "friend" knows this happens and that it could result in civil and criminal charges, as well as loss of her job, she may think twice about looking at your file!

So basically make up a new problem to continue to claim benefit? Do you wonder why GPs can be cynical and unhelpful about a system that puts them between people manipulating the system and the benefits agency trying to stop them doing so. I sympathise with Kronas' problems, but attitudes like this show why the system exists it the first place. The benefits system is there so those who cannot work get supported, not so people can manipulate money for nothing. I think you ought to get of your arse and go find a job DragonLord. The money is meant for those in NEED not those in WANT.

Hi folks, I thought I'd post to clarify the NHS rules on IVF. Simply if EITHER of a couple has kids, even with another partner, IVF is not free. IVF is expensive, and is considered a "lifestyle" treatment by many. There is still a debate as to whether it should be funded by the NHS at all. One cycle of IVF would pay for 5 cateract ops, for instance. (approx, and according to a mate who is a public health consultant) The rules are there to stop the limited availablity being used on more people than the goverment (that you elect) want to fund at present. No one in the NHS can bend these rules. they are pretty much written in stone. If you want to change them in the future, write to your MP or vote for someone who makes it an issue. Rationing is a fact in the NHS - it just can't pay for everything. We all want it to pay for what affects us, but it can't. I'm not saying I don't sympathise, but I have to say at least an explicit decision has been made here and it's not a postcode lottery like some things.

Hi BP, you sound very frightened about your young 'un, and I can see why. Fits seem to scare parents more than just about anything else - I know this from working as an SHO in paediatrics during my GP training. Unfortunately not all paediatric doctors seem to take on board how scared parents are. Most fits in young children are NOT due to underlying damage to or disease of the brain and nervous system. They almost never cause any damage to the child as long as they are short (less than 10 minutes!). It does NOT mean your daughter is epileptic, or even that it will happen again in the future (although it might- 30% or so of children who have one febrile fit will have another, but only a few will have several) Anyone can have a fit if conditions are right. We have what is called a "seizure threshold" and may have fits if the electrical activity in our brain rises above this level. This may occur as a result of imbalances in our body chemistry - too much or too little water/ sodium / calcium/ acid/ sugar etc in the blood. It may occur due to drugs and toxins - including toxins due to bacteria and viruses. In children the seizure threshold is much lower than in adults, so less imbalance will cause them to fit. This is why children often have so called febrile fits. This is a misleading name as it is not the fever or temperature that causes the fits but the toxins from infection (which also cause the fever, hence the apparent link) and also the deranged body chemistry from sweating too much, not feeding / drinking enough, losing salts through diarrhoea or vomiting etc. This is why the temperature may be normal at the time the child has a fit. Febrile fits are common and not serious or life threatening. They are NOT associated with epilepsy or other brain diseases, although children who do have these get more febrile fits because they have a lower seizure threshold. The doctors may suspect this is what happened to your daughter, but may not have explained it very well. The other possibility is that your daughter is having something other than a seizure. Many other things can seem like a fit, such as some faints ("syncopal pseudoseizures"), the rigors of a fever (very severe shivering), and some other similar things. These can be difficult to tell to even experienced eyes. All the textbooks and teaching tells doctors to concentrate on the history taken from a witness, which is why you were asked again and again about what you saw - they wanted to be extra clear as this is far more important than tests in making the diagnosis. A video of a fit is incredibly useful to neurologists - they were not trying to make fun of you or doubting your word. I suspect that the problem you have is that the explanations were not clear, and not sympathetic to your concerns, and that they did not respond to or test your understanding of their explanation as they went along. This can lead to misunderstanding and unhappiness all round. You may find it best to get an appointment with a good communicator like your GP to have it all explained in normal english in a way that makes sense, rather than by a jargon spouting junior doctor or consultant at the hospital. I think your daughter is likely to be OK, but you need to hear this from someone with all the details and facts, not from me over the internet. I am glad to hear you have a good GP as your GP ist the doctor you most need to trust and get on with - they can deal with other doctors for you if need be! Doctors are people - some are good at communicating, others are insensitive, or clumsy at talking to people just like anyone else. We get training on it, but some are better than others just like real life. It's not your fault if you talked to one of the less skilled, and it doesn't mean they don't know what they are doing, but it can make it seem that way! Hope this helps, and I hope all goes well for you and your daughter!

Hi, I hope your son is recovering from his surgery. I wonder why the hearing tests were bad the second time but OK the first. Is it possible all the hearing loss occurred between the first and second tests, or that the problem was intermittent. Your ENT consultant may know. If the GP was reassured by the normal tests then it may be difficult to show he was at fault or that any delay was what caused any hearing loss in your son. It sounds (sic) like he may make a good recovery in which case there is no consequence to any delay in diagnosis, making it pointless to persue matters through the courts anyway. I guess we should hope this is what actually happens!

I am a GP and I often check information on various quality websites such as GP notebook, eMedicine etc. My brain is only so big and medicine is a huge field. The internet is a huge easily accesible and redilyt searched textbook. What would be bad is a doctor who knew they didn't know and then did nothing to remedy their lack of knowledge in a manner that then affected the patient's care. The real trick is to "know what you don't know" (concious vs unconcious ignorance!) which is harder than you might think at first! I will often come accross something I have not seen for a while - yesterday I saw someone who might have had malaria, which I last saw 8 years ago - so I look it up. I would be reassured by a doctor who did that - he is making sure he does the safe and correct thing - and I'm puzzled that some patients just expect us to know everything about everything. Looking at the rest of this thread I can sympathise with Damselfish - Legionnaire's is an unpleasant disease. I know from experience it can be hard to diagnose, but three months seems a very long time. To sue successfully you have to show that your doctor fell below a "reasonable standard of care" - ie that most concientious doctors would have done a lot better. You also have to prove that the consequences were caused by the lapse of care - this is where most cases fail. Lets look at what you tell us - you can PM me with details if i make assumptions that are wrong. As a GP my practice is to think about "atypical" pneumonias in people who are taking more than 2-3 weeks to get better after respiritory infections and febrile (feverish) illnesses, but it can take a month of looking hard to find some even then. I can only do this if the patient comes back to tell me they are not getting better. I tell them to come back after 2 weeks if still ill, earlier if worsening. I would not be suprised to take 6-8 weeks to confirm and treat a milder (ie not life threatening) case of legionella. I suspect we sometimes successfully treat them without knowing simply by using "second line" antibiotics. You don't tell us how often you saw your GP. If it was less than 3 times then it is hard for any GP to know that things are not going to plan if you don't come back, however if you don't come back because a clear plan of when and why to return is not given, then that is bad practice by the GP. You don't say whether the Gp did any tests - blood tests, a chest x-ray, sputum or urine tests etc. If they did these in the first 4 weeks it would be difficult to show they were negligent as it would show they were looking for unusual causes. Finally on this first part of the case (negligence) you do not say who actually made the diagnosis and how you were treated. This may be relevant as to who was negligent. On the second point - "Causation" in legal terms - I suspect you will have more of a struggle. The problems you cite are not listed in my textbooks or on several good websites as recognised complications of legionnaires. Hypothyroidism in particular may have been a cause of all the others, and even left you susceptible to the legionnaires in the first place. It is also fair to say that diagnosing and treating you earlier may have made no difference to these problems. Many doctors would also want to look at whether you are now focussed on a so called "sick role" and identify yourself as a sick person thus keeping you feeling unwell more than if you were to put it all behind you and concentrate on other things - they may try to argue this in court which could be very upsetting for you. Fibromyalgia, M.E, viral arthritis and low adrenal reserve are poorly defined, poorly understood syndromes which have complex causes and a large psychological component. Proving any act of negligence caused such conditions is difficult but not impossible. In summary I think you may be a victim of medical negligence, although you may just be a victim of bad luck - inconclusive tests etc., but I suspect you would find it hard to win a case for the things you think were caused by that negligence. You would have an easier ride in the states where "causation" is not such a large hurdle. Under UK law BOTH hurdles must be cleared to win a case. I would proceed only with expert advice. Hope this helps you decide.

The mighty wheels of justice turn slow and grind fine.... **.04.07 Judge R L Hendicott: "upon courts own motion etc." "of own initiative, without hearing etc" :? It is ordered that: 1) Directions will be given by Judge G Hickinbottom on **.08.07 at (*time*) Cardiff Civil Court 2) The parties may appear in person or make written representations as to how the case should proceed provided a copy of the representations is sent to the court and the other side at least 7 working days prior to the hearing. I have questions for the more experienced of you folks out there: A) what sort of hearing is this: Is this a preliminary hearing, final hearing, or something else? May the court still accept the draft order at this hearing? Is there any chance of CBs / my case being struck out? :-D/:shock: B) What should I do in preparation: Should I prepare a full court bundle? If not is it worth going in person? - I'm free that day and I live near. Any other tips? !!! C) Anyone know anything of judge Higginbottom: nice or nasty to newbies like me; Sympathetic or antagonistic on bank charges etc. (PM me - you don't want to post potential libel about a judge on site!) Cheers and Lovely MazzaB

If Clydesdale have tried to blacken your credit record as some sort of disincentive to persuing them in the courts it is a good idead to let the ombudsman know - I don't think they are allowed to do that.