Woman awarded more than $100 million after surgery at Cornwall Regional Hospital left her paralyzed | News

One of the Supreme Court’s largest medical malpractice awards, worth more than $100 million plus interest, has been awarded to a 49-year-old woman who is now paralyzed after undergoing spinal decompression surgery spine surgery at St James’s Cornwall Regional Hospital in October 2015.

Judge Maxine Jackson last week ordered the defendants Western Regional Health Authority, the hospital operator and Jamaica’s attorney general to compensate the plaintiff, Nicole Ann Fullerton Clarke.

For general damages, the plaintiff was awarded $70 million for pain and suffering, $8.6 million for future home care, $5.2 million for future loss of income, $1.8 million for future medicine, $2.9 million for daily living (diapers and gloves), $720,000 for future doctors. visits and physiotherapy, $360,000 for future transportation and $23,353 for the motorized wheelchair.

She was awarded special damages of $6.1 million for loss of earnings, $1.9 million for additional help (home care), $627,294 for medical expenses and $120,000 for transportation.

The plaintiff, who was represented by lawyer Catherine Minto, who was previously instructed by Nunes, Scholefield, DeLeon & Co, sued the health authority and the government.

The claimant, who is now bedridden, had claimed that the hospital owed her a duty of care in relation to the treatment she received.

In 2015 the claimant, who lives in the parish of Trelawny, had tingling in her fingers with numbness and swelling in her right leg and was referred to the neurosurgery clinic for treatment.

She was diagnosed with cervical myelopathy at the C3-5 levels of the spine. This is a condition where the level of space around the spine narrows, compressing a section of nerve tissue, and was caused by cervical disc herniations at the C3-4, C4-5 and C5-6 levels.

According to the plaintiff, a recommendation for surgery was made after she had only been examined twice by the neurosurgery clinic at the defendant hospital. She argued that the recommended surgery was not the standard of care for treating her condition because it “causes instability of the spine, progression of cervical disc herniation and kyphotic deformity of the cervical spine.

No alternative or non-surgical treatment was recommended or explored by the hospital before advising her to undergo surgery. She said she was not advised of all the risks associated with the surgery and was not advised to seek a second expert.

The operation was carried out on 18 October 2015 and the claimant said she was now left with more serious personal injuries and permanent physical disability. She said before the operation that she was still able to walk and was able to work and go about her daily activities.

Some of the details of the 29 injuries the claimant now suffers from are paraplegia; severe quadriparesis; cramps affecting the muscles and extremities; inability to stand up or bathe without assistance; aggravation or progression of the herniated disc; tongue twitching and difficulty speaking at times; right leg in fixed, deformed and immobile position; depression and psychological problems caused by her deteriorating physical condition.

She also now has a 72% full-body permanent partial disability, as well as an increased risk of death and/or a shortened life expectancy.

The defendants, who were represented by attorney Faith Hall, instructed by the Director of State Proceedings, did not call any witnesses at the hearing.

The defendants did not accept liability and argued that neither the hospital nor its servants were negligent in performing the surgery. They stated in defense that the plaintiff was assessed by a senior neurosurgeon with four decades of experience and given the only opportunity for improvement given the clinical and radiological findings.

The hospital reiterated that all risks associated with the procedure were adequately explained to the claimant and she signed an informed consent document accepting that she fully understood the procedure and its risks.

Defendants asserted that “plaintiff presented with a progressive neurological disorder. MRI imaging demonstrated compression of the cervical cord by extensive ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament in front of the spinal cord (OPLL), a well-known and potentially correctable cause. of myelopathy.”

According to the defendants “the surgery achieved the goal of decompressing the spinal cord and was no worse off from the surgery. However, after several weeks, despite aggressive care, it became apparent that OPLL was a ‘red herring’ and her progressive neurological decline was based on a yet-to-be-defined degenerative disorder, possibly autoimmune or demyelinating in origin.”

– Barbara Gayle

Follow The Gleaner on X and Instagram @JamaicaGleaner and on Facebook @GleanerJamaica. Send us a message on WhatsApp at 1-876-499-0169 or email us at [email protected] or [email protected].