Mrs X had a longstanding history of mental health issues, as well as episodic periods of alcohol dependency. In November 2008, she presented with back pain and was started on a low dose of Co-codamol, which was increased in 2011 to the maximum dose (30mg/500mg) following persistent knee problems. Co-codamol is known to be an addictive medication and one that can interact dangerously with alcohol. Despite this, Mrs X was continually prescribed monthly supplies of co-codamol from 2011 until her death in 2022.
From 2016 onwards, Mrs X’s husband and children were worried that her behaviour had become erratic, and she was low with anxiety and agitation. She had bouts of binge drinking and there were concerns that her behaviour was becoming riskier. She also took a paracetamol overdose. In a letter from mental health services in 2020, Mrs X’s GP was advised that she had been abusing painkillers, often taking several codeine at once.
In August 2021, Mrs X’s husband (who over the years had tried to carefully manage her medication) died. In September 2021, one of Mrs X’s daughters complained to the GP practice that she was taking more Co-codamol than she should be. They removed all her Co-codamol and Mrs X admitted to not needing them.
Despite the family’s concerns, the repeat prescription was not altered. Her usual repeat prescription was issued numerous times during the months which followed. In total, a 181-day supply of Co-codamol was prescribed for a 110-day period between 11th October 2021 and 21st January 2022.
On 23rd January 2022, Mrs X was admitted to hospital having been found by her family struggling to breathe. It was noted that her Co-codamol prescription delivered on 20th January 2022 had nearly all gone, just three days later. Sadly, despite best efforts by clinicians at the hospital, Mrs X died on 28th January 2022.
Mrs X’s daughters acted as the Claimants on behalf of Mrs X’s estate. After a period of negotiation, the defendants admitted that there had been a negligent over prescription of Co-codamol which led to Mrs X’s death.
In claims where someone has died as a result of negligence, the heads of loss are limited. Most of the claim put forward on behalf of Mrs X’s daughters was for the loss of services Mrs X used to provide in caring for her grandchildren. Mrs X was a devoted grandmother who would do anything for her grandchildren.
Despite the defendant maintaining a robust argument that even if she hadn’t died, Mrs X would not have been able to continue providing the same level of care to her grandchildren, the claim eventually settled for £205,000.
Partner Michelle Meakin said of this case “Mrs X’s daughters have suffered a loss which cannot be quantified – the loss of their loving mother. However, it is hoped that this money will go some way to helping them replace some of the care she used to provide”.