Damages case for boy who had both eyes removed dismissed

Judge accepted evidence of health visitor

A bid to win damages from a health board for a blind boy who had both his eyes removed after he was diagnosed with a cancer failed yesterday.

A health visitor noticed that the child had “a very obvious squint” after his first birthday and he was referred to a family doctor before being sent to a hospital.

He was found to have retinoblastoma – a cancer growing behind the pupil – and both eyes were surgically removed.

An action was raised against Fife Health Board for compensation for the boy, now aged 9, at the Court in Session in Edinburgh.

The case against the health authority was brought in the name of an advocate, Lynda Brabender, representing the child’s interests.

It was argued that if the diagnosis was made earlier and treatment commenced the sight in one of the eyes of the boy, known in the action as KW, would have been saved.

His parents claimed that they saw something odd in the boy’s eye and asked another health visitor, Christine Kidd, for advice, but maintained she took no action except saying that it would be all right.

The health authority maintained that the parents did not mention that there was anything odd about the eye or ask for any advice about it.

It was also claimed in the action that Ms Kidd was negligent in not seeing the youngster frequently enough in his circumstances. The health authority maintained she saw the child as often as was appropriate.

Lady Stacey said that she accepted Ms Kidd’s evidence that she did her best to care for the mother and her family.

Lady Stacey said: “It would be a grave dereliction of duty for a health visitor to fob off a mother who was concerned about a squint or a white area in a baby’s eye.”

“I heard nothing in Ms Kidd’s evidence to suggest that she would do such a thing due either to personal disapproval or any other reason.”

The judge said the boy, one of six children, was “a much loved son” and the diagnosis and treatment which followed “must have been a devastating blow for the whole family”.

The court heard that at one stage the parents had to take the boy to London for treatment.

The cost was borne by the NHS, but the couple claimed for money over travel when tickets had been bought for them. They were prosecuted for fraud and pleaded guilty.

The judge said that while it showed them in a poor light it did seem to her to be a different matter from concocting a case against the health visitor.

It would be a grave dereliction of duty for a health visitor to fob off a mother who was concerned about a squint or a white area in a baby’s eye. LADY STACEY