Korle-Bu Files Its Defence
By William Yaw Owusu
Friday, 02 June 2006
THE Korle-Bu Teaching Hospital has filed its defence in the case in which a 14-year-old boy has sued it claiming ¢800 million damages for negligence.

The suit, filed at the Accra Fast Track High Court through the boy’s mother, Gladys Darko, cites the governing board of the hospital, as well as Doctors Kennedy Addo, Korpisah and Agbeko, all of Korle-Bu, for a “wrongful operation” performed on him on September 13, 2005.

The suit stated that the doctors operated on the boy’s left knee instead of the right, after he was diagnosed with a torn patellaligament.

In a 34 paragraphed statement filed on May 24 by Lexcom Associates, solicitors of the defendants the hospital said sometime in May last year, the boy reported to them with a problem in the right knee for treatment.

It said that “a clinical and radiological examination also confirmed that the boy had an avulsion of the right tibial tuberosity and calcification in the right patella tendon.”

The statement said Dr M.K. Larnyoh, a senior medical officer at the Orthopaedic Clinic and Trauma Unit, (now deceased) re-assessed and confirmed the diagnosis before booking the boy for surgery during his school vacation.

It said that it was Dr Larnyoh, the head of the surgical team, who took the decision to operate on the boy’s right knee.

It said that while the boy was under general anaesthesias prior to the operation on the right knee, “ the boy’s left patella tendon was observed to be lax and needed to be operated on urgently.

“To correct the lax left patella tendon, Dr Larnyoh performed a z-plasty to tighten the left patella tendon.”

The statement said Dr Agbeko being the Anaesthetist, left the theatre before the operation commenced while Dr Addo and Dr Korpisah who were understudying Dr Larnyoh, were not involved in the surgery.

They denied that their action had led to a deformity in the boy’s left knee and leg.

They statement said that the defendants had not been “extremely negligent and recklessly careless,” in their handling of the boy and were not in breach of duty in giving professional care to the boy.

The defendants argued that the boy was not entitled to any of his claims as contained in his writ of summons.

In his reply to the statement of defence, filed on May 30 by his counsel, Mr Thomas Hughes, the boy denied that he had ever been diagnosed as having an avulsion on the right tibial tuberosity.

The reply said medical records showed that the three doctors actively participated in the surgery and claimed that his left knee was diagnosed as intact from the first day he attended hospital.

The boy said his right knee earmarked for the surgery was left untouched, and claimed that the doctors admitted their fault and gave the assurance that the damage would not be fatal.

He said after realizing their mistake, the defendants operated on the right knee nine days after the wrong operation.