Select location
Membership information
0800 561 9000
Medicolegal advice
0800 561 9090
Refine my search

High expectations

Post date: 14/09/2014 | Time to read article: 4 mins

The information within this article was correct at the time of publishing. Last updated 14/11/2018

Mr O was a 24-year-old man who had just enjoyed a holiday overseas. On the return journey he started vomiting. The nausea and vomiting continued after he arrived home and he began to lose weight because of it. When his symptoms did not abate he made an appointment with his GP.

His GP documented a four-week history of nausea and vomiting and, after reviewing normal blood tests, referred him to gastroenterology. The gastroenterologist wrote back concluding that he had found no significant pathology on endoscopy or ultrasound, and that he thought that anxiety was contributing to his ongoing symptoms. Irritable bowel syndrome was also considered to be a factor.

Mr O asked his GP for a private referral to neurology, which he agreed to. The neurologist arranged an MRI scan, which was normal, and felt that Mr O was suffering from a significant depressive illness from which he had partly recovered. Mr O did not agree with this diagnosis and felt that his symptoms had a physical rather than a psychological cause. He did, however, agree to see a psychiatrist, who concurred that his symptoms were due to anxiety and depression. He prescribed venlafaxine and arranged CBT.

Mr O was struggling with fatigue in addition to the nausea and was not coping at work, so he visited his GP again. His GP referred him to a specialist in chronic fatigue who wondered if he may be suffering with post-viral fatigue syndrome.

Mr O was convinced that there was a physical cause for his symptoms and demanded a second neurological opinion. This was sought but nothing abnormal was found on examination, repeat MRI or lumbar puncture. He had mentioned some dizziness and had an audiometric assessment showing abnormal canal paresis to the right. The neurologist concluded in a letter to the GP that “the only abnormality found in spite of extensive investigations was a mild peripheral vestibular disorder”. The letter detailed that he had been seen by a physiotherapist who had instructed him in Cawthorne-Cooksey exercises and that he had been asked to continue these at home.

Despite doing the vestibular rehabilitation exercises at home, Mr O failed to improve. He still felt weak and light-headed and had moved back in with his parents who were worried about him. They made him another appointment with his GP who referred him for an ENT opinion.

The ENT consultant took a detailed history and noted the absence of tinnitus, vertigo or deafness. She could not find anything abnormal on examination and thought that a labyrinthine problem was unlikely to be the problem. She repeated the balance tests, which were normal.

Years went by and Mr O became very focused on his symptoms, feeling sure that a diagnosis had been missed. Opinions were sought from an endocrinologist, a professor in tropical diseases and a private GP. Nothing abnormal could be found and no firm diagnosis was made. A neuro-otologist thought that his symptoms were due to a combination of “anxiety with an associated breathing pattern disorder, a migraine variant and physical de-conditioning”. A joint neuro-otology/psychiatry clinic concluded that it was “a confusing story with nebulous symptoms but it was probably a variant of fatigue disorder with a depressive element and derealisation”.

Mr O was very frustrated at the lack of diagnosis or improvement in his symptoms. He felt that the sole cause of his symptoms was a peripheral vestibular disorder. He made a claim against his GP, alleging that he had failed to make the diagnosis and that he had also failed to arrange vestibular rehabilitation.

MPS instructed expert opinion from a GP and a professor in audiovestibular medicine. The experts felt that Mr O’s GP had not been at fault.

The professor in audiovestibular medicine was sceptical regarding the diagnosis of a vestibular disorder. He noted that repeat audiograms and tympanograms had been normal and felt there was no robust evidence that he had a peripheral vestibular disorder. He stated that there was no clinical history suggestive of vestibular pathology at the onset of Mr O’s illness. He also commented that there had been no consensus amongst various specialists as to the true cause of Mr O’s symptoms and that to claim that a peripheral vestibular disorder was the sole cause was an overly simplistic view.

The GP expert noted that the neurologist’s letter to the GP referred to Mr O having been instructed by the physiotherapists in Cawthorne- Cooksey exercises. These are vestibular rehabilitation exercises so it was wrong to say that there had been a failure to arrange the exercises or that this was the responsibility of the GP. The expert explained that GPs are not trained to instruct a patient in vestibular rehabilitation exercises and are not likely to have direct access to specialist physiotherapists who could arrange these. The expert noted that a large number of specialists saw Mr O over a prolonged period, all of whom failed to reach a consensus on the cause of his symptoms. The expert’s view was that the treatment provided was reasonable and that the standard that the claimant sought to apply was too high.

Mr O withdrew his claim before it went to court.

Learning points

  • The defence of this claim was helped by the contents of the correspondence to and from specialists, which were relied upon to disprove some of the allegations made. It is important to take the time to write comprehensive referral letters and to read letters from specialists carefully. Correspondence is an important part of the medical record, as well as being important communication between clinicians.
  • Mr O clearly had a very difficult time. There had been a protracted period of time with no clear diagnosis. However, in the circumstances of this case, this did not equate to negligence.
  • This case highlights the standard doctors must meet in order to refute negligence claims – that of a responsible body of their peers (GPs in this case), rather than a specialist in the condition in question.

Share this article

Load more reviews

You've already submitted a review for this item

New site feature tour

Introducing an improved
online experience

You'll notice a few things have changed on our website. After asking our members what they want in an online platform, we've made it easier to access our membership benefits and created a more personalised user experience.

Why not take our quick 60-second tour? We'll show you how it all works and it should only take a minute.

Take the tour Continue to site

Medicolegal advice
0800 561 9090
Membership information
0800 561 9000

Key contact details

Should you need to contact us, our phone numbers are always visible.

Personalise your search

We'll save your profession in the "I am a..." dropdown filter for next time.

Tour completed

Now you've seen all of the updated features, it's time for you to try them out.

Continue to site
Take again