Allegations of negligence
(a) The First Defendant was negligent in that there were failures between 15 September 2008 and 23 September 2009 to:-
(i) Carry out a satisfactory examination of Mr XXX on and following 15 September 2008 when he attended the surgery complaining of pain and swelling in his right testis;
(ii) Take sufficient heed of his symptoms of significant ongoing pan and the swollen testicle, in particular after Mr XXX had been admitted to A&E at XXX Hospital with significant pain on 19 September 2008;
(iii) Carry out a urethral swab test and for a urine test when Mr XXX attended on 23 September 2008;
(iv) Make a diagnosis of epididymo-orchitis when Mr XXX attended on 23 September 2008;
(v) Prescribe antibiotics for Mr XXX which would have treated the infection;
(vi) Advise Mr XXX to return immediately if he had continuing problems. Instead Mr XXX was told to return in a few weeks if he did not improve.
(vii) Consider that Mr XXX may have epididymo-orchitis when he suggested this at his appointment on 23 September 2009.
(b) The Second Defendant through their medical staff and/or other employees or agents was negligent in that there were failures on or around 19 September 2008 to:-
(i) Carry out a satisfactory examination of Mr XXX when he attended at the hospital;
(ii) Take sufficient heed of his symptoms of significant ongoing pan and swollen right testicle;
(iii) Carry out a urine test;
(iv) Carry out an ultra sound scan or any other sort of further tests;
(v) Refer Mr XXX to a urologist;
(vi) Start Mr XXX on a course of antibiotics which would have treated the infection.
Causation
Had Mr XXX been examined properly on 19 September 2008 when he was admitted, it would have been appreciated that further tests were required, in particular testing the urine and performing an ultrasound scan of the right testicle. Had further tests been carried out Mr XXX's condition would have been diagnosed and treatment would have been started immediately consisting of a course of antibiotics. On a balance of probability this would have avoided the reduction in fertility. Mr XXX has been informed by his GP that it is unlikely that his fertility levels will ever recover.
Quantum
Mr XXX has extremely low fertility levels. He will therefore find it very difficult to have children now. Had treatment been carried out at an earlier stage this problem could have been prevented.
Mr XXX works as a XXXX.
We outline the heads of damage as follows:-
(a) General damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity and for reduced fertility
(b) Past additional care
(c) Expenses
(d) Personal injury interest
(e) Future treatment
Bookmarks