Operation 'left woman paralysed'
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 SOLICITOR brought a High Court medical negligence action yesterday over a routine operation which, she claims, left her paralysed from the neck down. The judge, Mr Justice Morland, said that whatever the outcome of Michelle Howard's case against Wessex Regional Health Authority, hers was a 'remarkable achievement'.
Miss Howard, 27, of Branksome, Poole, Dorset, has been paralysed since the morning after an operation on her lower jaw at Poole General Hospital in November 1982.
Daniel Brennan QC, for Miss Howard, said that despite her 'catastrophe', she had obtained a law degree, qualified as a solicitor and joined a practice.
Earlier this year, she won a Businesswoman of the Year award in Swindon, Wiltshire, where she is employed by the law firm Townsends.
Mr Brennan said that before the operation she was a fit and healthy 16-year-old, except that her lower jaw was not properly aligned with her upper jaw, making eating difficult.
When she became paralysed, a consultant neurosurgeon diagnosed a spinal cord trauma, which was was not a recognised complication or even a known event following such an operation. The health authority, which denies negligence, claims the spinal problem was caused by another condition which occurred coincidentally after the operation.
The case, which is to decide the issue of liability only, continues today.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments