A man who can only communicate by operating a computer with his nose has won a landmark £2m compensation payout – after launching his own legal fight against the hospital where he was born with severe brain injuries.
Quadriplegic Jonathon Khairule, 28, who has a distinction in advanced information technology, started investigating the circumstances surrounding his birth and disability five years ago.
It was discovered he could have been starved of oxygen and he started looking for a legal team to fight his case.
But because the law in England and Wales governs that claims for children injured at birth must be brought between the ages of 18 and 21 he was told he was technically ‘out of time’.
Mr Khairule, who is in a wheelchair, can’t speak and has to spell out words using his nose to control a specially adapted computer, refused to give up and took his case to the High Court where judges ruled he could pursue a legal claim.
He is now celebrating a £2m out-of-court settlement after his lawyers Irwin Mitchell launched a civil action on his behalf against regional health bosses NHS North West.
Mr Khairule said: “I knew I had cerebral palsy from birth, but I had always been led to believe that it was just one of those unfortunate things which could not have been avoided. It wasn’t until I was in my early 20s that I started to do some investigating. At that stage I just wanted answers.
“I contacted various legal firms but no one wanted to touch my case because I was over 21 and they told me I was out of time to bring a claim for a birth injury. Irwin Mitchell was the only law firm to agree to take up my case.”
Health bosses confirmed they have reached a settlement but say the NHS does not accept liability for his injuries. Jonathon left his Tameside home at just 16, moving to Coventry to study. He now intends to use the settlement to move back to Greater Manchester and buy a specially adapted home.
Evidence
Sara Burns, a medical negligence specialist with Irwin Mitchell, said: “We examined the medical evidence and became convinced that what had happened to Jonathon couldn’t be explained away as ‘one of those things’. We discovered that heart monitoring performed at the time of his birth showed Jonathon’s fetal heart rate was decelerating alarmingly and our expert’s view was this should have prompted midwives to take immediate action.
“Even after obstetricians intervened, Jonathon was not delivered promptly.”
She said his case was due to go to trial in the High Court at the end of last year, but Jonathon accepted a last-minute offer from the trust. Ms Burns said: “This financial settlement will help to improve his quality of life by purchasing a speciallyadapted home and also help to fund round the clock care which is so vitally important for him.
“However, we remain concerned that the trust has refused to admit liability for what happened to Jonathon and as such we cannot be certain that they have learned lessons.”
A spokeswoman for NHS North West said: “In 2008, Mr Khairule was given the court’s discretion to proceed with a claim arising from the circumstances of his birth at Tameside General Hospital in 1981. The liability for his disability has remained firmly in dispute but a mutually acceptable compromise of the claim has been achieved.”


Showing comments 1 to 16 and replies | View All
The Devil's Advocate, M11 born and bred, East Stand Lower 104 (25/01/2010 at 09:37)
Luise, Sydney (25/01/2010 at 11:42)
Calamity (25/01/2010 at 12:23)
Bob Hope (25/01/2010 at 12:25)
Kian Drury (25/01/2010 at 12:28)
I think a moral victory would have been better than a financial one.
Mad Welsh Scotsman, Cadishead (25/01/2010 at 12:38)
Blunt (25/01/2010 at 12:50)
Black Flag (25/01/2010 at 12:57)
Your comments illustrate how the NHS is based on a fundamentally flawed approach.
Had this been a private company being prosecuted, I doubt anybody would have been making the kind of comments you have. In fact, I imagine that far more people would be delighting in the business being hit in its pocket, but, just because the organisation in this case is the NHS, some people take an "all should be forgiven" approach.
You seem to want a system where there is no liability for medical negligence, but it is precisely that kind of environment which encourages negligence by removing the consequences.
mike356 (25/01/2010 at 13:34)
Bobby Manc, Paris, New York, Milan, Manchester (25/01/2010 at 13:40)
25/01/2010 at 12:57
I couldnt agree more with that statement....very well put Sir.
J.Hall, Tameside (25/01/2010 at 14:26)
steak, Manchester (25/01/2010 at 16:26)
J.Hall, Tameside (25/01/2010 at 19:43)
telfire, Denton (25/01/2010 at 20:25)
Laura Norder, Didsbury (25/01/2010 at 22:22)
Did you actually read the article?
The 'negligence' occurred more than 28 years ago - do you really believe that any of the hierarchy involved will still be working at the hospital?
Best wishes Jonathon, never give up.
citycentre, manchester (26/01/2010 at 08:53)
A good point, but there have been many instances of commentators here saying private companies should not be prosecuted when their actions lead to injury or death of their staff, or even random members of the public. Accidents are accidents seems to be te usual cry.