Negligence ruled out in leukaemia patient’s death
CORONER: THERE WAS NO ‘MISSED OPPORTUNITY’ THAT WOULD HAVE SAVED DANIEL
The parents of a courageous cancer sufferer who died after he was admitted to hospital with a chest infection say they are considering legal action – despite a coroner ruling out any negligence in his death.
Leukaemia patient Daniel James Homer, 22, of Silksworth, had relapsed after a stem-cell transfer from his brother and was also suffering from graft-versus-host disease (GvHD), in which the patient’s own white blood cells attack the body.
An inquest at Sunderland Coroner’s Court heard Daniel had been unwell shortly before his death and his father David had rung an emergency advice number at Newcastle’s Freeman Hospital on Thursday, February 23, 2017, but no consultant had been available.
A transplant nurse, StephenFox,hadpromisedto get someone to ring back, but Mr Homer had to ring back himself the following day and had been told to bring Daniel inforclinicthefollowingMonday if he was still poorly.
“I was waiting for them to say ‘bring him in.’” he said,
“It was an emergency number. Daniel had said he was not well. The instructions were ‘If you are not well, ring us’.”
A post-mortem examination by Home Office Pathologist Dr Jennifer Bolton found Daniel had died as a result of multi-organ failure caused by a chest infection, due to acute lymphoblastic leukaemia and with GvHD as a contributory factor.
The infection had developed very rapidly and there was no sign of any infection that could have been picked up when Daniel was last examined on February 13.
Coroner Derek Winter paid tribute to Mr Homer and his wife Mary’s determination to fight for their son.
But he said there was no reason to believe anything could have been done to avoid what happened to Daniel.
While there may have been a “conflict of recollection,” about the phone conversation “neither Mr Homer, Mrs Homer, Daniel or, indeed Mr Fox had any contemplation of the possibly of Daniel going into hospital,” he said.
“Mr and Mrs Homer have accepted there was a natural ending to Daniel’s life, but suggest, in terms, that there was an element of neglect.
“The medical opinion, and in particular from Dr Bolton, was the outcome for Daniel was, in all likelihood, going to be the same.
“I can’t identify from the evidence any failure, let alone a gross failure, that would justify me making a finding of neglect.
“I can’t find there was a missed opportunity that would, in all likelihood, have made a difference to the outcome.
“Daniel died from a naturally-occurring disease process running its natural course.”