Negligence leads to hearing loss
When Carl’s ear became infected, he visited his GP and was diagnosed with a perforated ear drum. He was referred to an Ears, Nose and Throat (ENT) specialist and surgery was carried out in 1999. During the surgery skin from behind Carl’s ear was used to seal the hole inside the ear. Despite the surgery, Carl’s hearing did not improve.
In 2004 Carl was referred back to the same ENT doctor because the hole in his ear drum had recurred. Carl had begun using a hearing aid.
The doctor recommended a second operation during which skin would be grafted over the hole in the ear. Carl was concerned about scarring but was assured that no evidence of the surgery would be apparent externally. The fact that Carl’s first operation had made little difference to his hearing suggested his hearing loss was likely to have another cause other than the hole in his ear. This was not explained to Carl, who following discussions with the doctor believed the reason for his second operation was to improve his hearing.
When his bandages were removed after the second operation Carl discovered that despite advice from the ENT specialist that no evidence of the surgery would be seen, part of his outer ear had clearly been removed.
Carl found that his hearing loss became worse after the surgery and a standard hearing aid no longer fitted the altered shape of his ear. The graft in Carl’s ear broke down and Carl was left with a hole in his ear which was larger then it ever had been previously.
Carl pursued a claim against the hospital staff in respect of the inadequate advice he was given prior to the surgery in 2004.
With the help of medical negligence solicitor, Jennifer Emerson in Birmingham, Carl went on to receive a five figure out of court settlement.