Background to Emma’s hydrocephalus claim
Emma was diagnosed with hydrocephalus in 2000. Hydrocephalus is a condition where extra fluid builds up inside the skull, which can increase pressure on the brain. To treat this, Emma had a shunt fitted – a thin, flexible tube that diverts extra brain fluid away from the skull so the body can absorb it (often called a ventriculoperitoneal shunt).
In 2014 Emma began having severe headaches that were much worse at night and improved during the day. In April 2015 she had intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring – a test where a small sensor is placed temporarily to measure pressure inside the skull. The recordings included several raised pressure readings, but Emma was told the results were normal and was discharged.
What happened next
Emma’s headaches continued and gradually affected all areas of her life. She struggled with everyday tasks, reduced her working hours and was often too unwell to look after her young child. Her symptoms briefly eased during pregnancy but returned after the birth in 2016. By 2017 further tests suggested the shunt might not be working properly and she was placed on a waiting list for surgery.
In March 2018 Emma had the shunt revised. During the operation surgeons found that the tube from the brain had come away from the valve and was partially blocked, which meant the shunt had not been draining effectively for some time. Although some symptoms improved after the operation, Emma continued to have headaches, dizziness and nausea. The problems returned again after the birth of her second child in January 2019.
Additional problems caused by Emma’s shunt failure
The delay in recognising and treating the shunt problem had consequences beyond physical pain:
- Emma developed anxiety and low mood because of ongoing symptoms and uncertainty.
- She had to reduce her working hours and lost pension contributions.
- Family life and daily routines were disrupted, and she needed extra help with childcare and household tasks.
How we supported Emma
We helped Emma by:
- obtaining and reviewing all relevant medical records and test results;
- instructing independent medical experts (a neurosurgeon, a neurologist and a psychologist) to review her care and explain the effects of the delay; and
- explaining practical options for compensation to cover lost earnings, care needs and the wider impact on daily life.
The neurosurgeon we instructed also explained clearly what the ICP monitoring should have shown: the pressure recordings were consistent with raised intracranial pressure and, taken together, should have prompted further investigation and urgent action to check the shunt.
The role of expert evidence
Specialist medical opinion is often essential to make technical issues easy to understand:
- a neurosurgeon (a brain surgeon) reviewed the operation notes and explained how the shunt had failed and what that meant for Emma;
- a neurologist (a doctor who treats conditions of the brain and nervous system) explained the ICP monitoring and how the results should have been interpreted; and
- a psychologist described the emotional impact of living with ongoing pain and uncertainty.
These expert reports helped show what went wrong and how the delay affected Emma’s health, work and family life.
Outcome of Emma’s hydrocephalus negligence claim
The Defendant hospital disputed liability throughout the case but after careful preparation and expert evidence, Emma’s case was resolved at a settlement meeting with a substantial five-figure settlement to reflect pain and suffering, loss of earnings and the costs of care and support. The settlement has given Emma and her family some financial breathing space and helped Emma access the support she needed.
Emma’s words
“For years I felt ignored and exhausted. Katherine Pearce and her team listened, explained the process clearly, and helped me gather the expert evidence I needed. I was guided through the investigation with honesty and it felt like my hand was held throughout. Their support has given us the chance to plan for what comes next.”