In January 1999, DL, who was 12 at the time, was urgently referred to the defendant Trust by his GP, who was concerned that a tender, growing lump in his left upper arm might be a sarcoma. Within a month, DL was clinically examined and underwent X-ray, ultrasound and MRI imaging, but no biopsy. It was concluded that the lump was benign and should be left well alone. Advice was given as to warning signs. He was reviewed annually in the paediatric department until 2002, when he was discharged aged 15 with no further follow-up.

In 2014, DL was referred back to adult Orthopaedic services, aged 28, as the lump had grown bigger and more painful. Following x-ray, ultrasound and MRI imaging, an arteriovenous malformation (AVM) was (wrongly) diagnosed, and DL underwent two courses of inappropriate and unnecessary sclerotherapy treatment in 2015. This gave no benefit but caused increased disability, pain and wrist drop. The lump continued to grow and became more painful.

Following MRI imaging in 2016, an A&E attendance for sudden chest pain, and a CT scan, DL was advised he had developed lung metastases due to advanced-stage sarcoma, which was beyond curative treatment. In October 2016, DL developed brain metastases, and despite radiotherapy, he sadly died in July 2018, aged just 32.

DL’s widow claimed that, with appropriate referral and biopsy in 1999, the lump would then have been diagnosed as a sarcoma, it would have been surgically removed with no local or metastatic spread, and DL would have had a 90% chance of full recovery and normal life expectancy. He would have had some loss of arm function, but would have been able to return to his previous employment. Even a correct diagnosis in 2014 would have extended DL’s life.

The Trust denied any breach of duty between 1999 and 2002 and claimed the tumour would already have metastasised by that stage and death would have occurred in any event. It admitted, however, that it negligently failed to consider sarcoma in November 2014 and subjected DL to inappropriate sclerotherapy treatment, but this made no difference to the outcome, and DL would have died as he did in any event.

After Court proceedings began in March 2022, and despite the Trust maintaining its defence throughout, the parties eventually reached a settlement, thus avoiding the trial, which was due to begin in November 2025.

Penny Tilmouth comments, “Early diagnosis is critical for rare cancers like sarcomas. Their rarity makes timely and specialist referral and diagnosis essential, and our client and her husband fought hard and continuously questioned his treatment and diagnosis. While no settlement can ever compensate for the loss of DL’s life at such a young age, or for what his widow has endured, we hope this settlement provides some sense of closure and financial security and enables her to move forward with her life.”

DL’s widow commented, “I felt so let down. Despite every effort we made to get to the bottom of DL’s condition, no one listened until it was too late. As a result, my future with my husband was stripped away, and the light he brought into my life went out. DL started this claim and wanted me to continue it after he died so that another child in the same situation would be taken seriously and the same thing did not happen to them. I hope this settlement goes some way towards achieving that wish.”

Contact our cancer misdiagnosis claims solicitors

To begin your claim for cancer misdiagnosis compensation, contact our experienced solicitors at Ashtons Legal.

You can contact our medical negligence solicitors in Bury St Edmunds, Cambridge, Ipswich, Norwich and Leeds, or fill in the enquiry form on the right-hand side of our contact page.