A surgeon who left a patient with “life changing injuries” has failed to persuade appeal judges NHS Tayside should pay half a £2.8 million compensation order.
Muftah Salem Eljamel was ordered to pay Carolyn Almond-Roots the sum following proceedings at the Court of Session in 2020.
Ms Almond-Roots sued Mr Eljamel and NHS Tayside after developing Cauda equina syndrome – a rare spinal condition – in 2013.
Mr Eljamel, known as “Sam”, had been a consultant neurosurgeon at Ninewells Hospital.
Ms Almond-Roots attended the accident and emergency department on February 4 2013 complaining of pain spreading upwards from her thigh, before being referred to the department of neurosurgery.
An advanced nurse practitioner, working under Mr Eljamel, examined her and believed she required an emergency MRI scan and specialist surgery.
However, Ms Almond-Roots was discharged after Mr Eljamel decided she did not have Cauda equina syndrome and could have a scan as an outpatient.
The surgeon operated on Ms Almond-Roots on April 16 2013 at Fernbrae Hospital in Dundee after she opted to be treated privately but her condition worsened.
Mr El Jamel prescribed steroids for nerve root damage and referred her to Ninewells, where it was revealed her condition was “irreversible”.
Ms Almond-Roots is one of many patients who have complained about botched treatment at the hands of the surgeon, who was last known to be practising in Libya.
Background to the case
People with Cauda equina syndrome can experience sciatica on both sides, numbness and incontinence.
Ms Almond-Roots was awarded £2,810,118 after both Mr Eljamel and NHS Tayside accepted liability for Ms Almond-Roots’ injuries.
He agreed with lawyers who argued “zero per cent” of the apportion should be attributed to NHS Tayside as it was the surgeon’s actions which caused Ms Almond-Roots’s injuries.
He appealed, claiming Lord Uist failed to properly assess the evidence in the case and apply the law correctly.
But appeal judges Lady Dorrian, Lady Wise and Lord Turnbull upheld their colleague’s decision.
Eljamel 100% liable for costs
In a written judgement issued on Friday, Lord Turnbull wrote: “Whilst he (Lord Uist) may not have explained in any detail why he considered the moral blameworthiness of the negligence for which the first defender (Eljamel) was responsible to be far greater than that of the second defenders (NHS Tayside), the reasoning is perhaps obvious.
“More importantly though, his analysis of the causative responsibility for the pursuer’s injuries cannot be faulted.
“He was correct to conclude that the negligence of the second defenders did not cause any significant harm to the pursuer.
“The Lord Ordinary concluded that it would be unjust to find the second defenders liable to contribute to the damages for the CES which the pursuer suffered.
“In arriving at that conclusion he…. arrived at a decision which is beyond criticism.”
For all the latest from the court rooms of Tayside and Fife, join our Facebook group.
