Copyright Moore Barlow LLP (Moore Blatch and Barlow Robbins merged May 2020)

Kidney transplant failure to prevent rejection

In 2006 D received a donor kidney by way of transplant. Following surgery he was prescribed cyclosporine as an anti-rejection agent. Initially the transplant was successful and he achieved a degree of stable renal function.

At a routine follow up appointment at Hospital, tests confirmed that his creatinine levels had risen to 221 umol/l and testing revealed glycosuria. The presence of sugar in the urine but not in the blood suggested that renal damage was causing a proximal tubular injury and this should have been noted as an indication that he was or might be developing progressive loss of renal function. At a later review a further increase in creatinine levels was noted. A blood test was planned in three weeks for a cyclosporine check but Mr D did not receive an appointment.

When subsequently seen in an out patient clinic, Mr D was clearly unwell. Blood tests taken were abnormal with yet a further rise in his creatinine level. Not with standing this Mr D was simply advised to continue with his current drug regime and no further action was taken despite indications that he should have been considered to be suffering rejection of the transplanted kidney and consequently should have been given altered anti rejection treatment. He was simply discharged and advised to re-attend in three months for a routine clinic appointment. 

Subsequently Mr D suffered progressive reduction in his renal function and end stage renal failure. He began haemodialysis and was put on the transplant list.

Moore Blatch solicitors were instructed to advise. Copies of all relevant medical records were obtained, collated and analysed. An independent expert’s report was obtained from a Consultant Nephrologist who confirmed that there had been a clear lack of all appropriate skill or care to connote negligence.

Proceedings were issued in the High Court seeking damages for medical negligence. The claim was settled for a substantial five figure sum.

This case was conducted by partner Vicky Hydon with assistance from junior fee earners. Vicky said: “this was a difficult case but we were pleased with the terms of the settlement.”


Share