£345,000 award for woman who suffered needless breast surgery
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.A woman who suffered through years of unnecessary major surgery after an incorrect breast cancer diagnosis today won £345,222 High Court damages.
A woman who suffered through years of unnecessary major surgery after an incorrect breast cancer diagnosis today won £345,222 High Court damages.
Jennifer Cormack, 63, lost her career as a child nurse manager because of the devastating stress of what she had been told was a terminal condition.
After the misdiagnosis by doctor Colin Berry - now Sir Colin Berry - at The London Hospital in December 1985, Mrs Cormack, who had a history of benign breast lumps, underwent 14 operations.
They included a double mastectomy, seven reconstructive breast procedures, a partial thryroidectomy and two hernia repairs.
She also had a full hysterectomy after problems with the cancer drug Tamoxifen and one of her silicone implants burst.
Nine years later - in November 1994 - that the mother-of-two discovered that there was nothing wrong with her.
Mrs Cormack, of Kenninghall, Norwich, sued East London and the City Health Authority for their negligent treatment.
Her claim included sums for loss of earnings, loss of pension rights, the cost of care and the pain and suffering she endured.
The authority admitted liability and causation but disputed the amount of compensation due.
Mr Justice Buckley said he assumed that appropriate inquiry and action had been instigated by the proper medical authority into the incident.
He added that a report had concluded that there was a "series of indefensible misdiagnoses" which indicated a level of competence insufficient for a candidate to have passed the original primary examination for membership of the Royal College of Pathologists.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments