Abstract
Mrs Chambers, who was 53 years old at the date of settlement, complained that she was prescribed a benzodiazepine, Tranxene, for a 24-year period, from November 1980 to March 2004, without appropriate advice about dependence upon the drug.
Tranxene was initially prescribed for anxiety causing sleep deprivation. In November 1984, Mrs Chambers asked for the dose to be reduced to 7.5 mgs as she noted a lower dose was available in a leaflet accompanying one of her prescriptions. In the early to mid-1980s, Mrs Chambers tried to withdraw from Tranxene. She was unable to do so as a result of flu-like symptoms, disturbed vision, headaches and panic attacks. Mrs Chambers said that it was not until April 2004 that she became aware of the adverse/high dependency effects of Tranxene and the need to come off the drug. She was subsequently referred to Dr Mora, Consultant Psychiatrist, and she registered with a different GP practice, which helped her with the gradual withdrawal programme. Mrs Chambers wished to claim compensation as she felt she had been numbed to life during the period she was taking the drug, although it had not stopped her from functioning day-to-day and she had carried on working. She should have had 15 years of ‘feeling better in herself’. She had not learnt to drive as she did not consider it safe for her to do so given that she was taking regular medication.
The case was publicly funded. Experts instructed for Mrs Chambers were Dr Adrian Rogers, GP, and Professor Malcolm Lader, Clinical Psychopharmacologist. A Letter of Claim was sent 22 June 2005 with a pre-action offer to settle for £15,000 plus costs. The MDU asked for an extension of time to respond but then simply passed the matter to solicitors who also took a lengthy period of time to respond. The response denied both breach of duty and causation. The GPs stated they had tried to persuade Mrs Chambers to reduce her amount of Tranxene but she had been a non-compliant patient. However, there was no mention of any such advice within the GP notes that just referred to repeat prescriptions of Tranxene.
There were funding difficulties with the case. Counsel's advice was that the claim was worth no more than £5000. Therefore, the Claimant would be unable to proceed with public funding to issue. The Claimant's Part 36 Offer to settle was renewed, together with an indication that the Claimant intended to report the GP's conduct in prescribing the Tranxene to the GMC as a matter of misconduct. This assisted in encouraging a settlement although the settlement did not restrict Mrs Chambers' right to still report the matter to the GMC. The case was settled at £5000 plus costs. This was a global settlement. Special losses were £315.
Settlement was concluded after discharge of the public funding certificate.