Complex Regional Pain Syndrome

Following our hosting of the inaugural London and South East Burning Nights Support Group meeting in October last year, MW Solicitors is honoured to join Burning Nights' panel of specialist solicitors.

Complex Regional Pain Syndrome

Burning Nights is a charity dedicated to raising awareness and supporting people affected by a poorly understood nerve condition, Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS).

CRPS can cause a person to experience persistent, severe and debilitating pain along with other symptoms. The condition may develop after an injury, surgery, stroke or heart attack, but the pain is out of proportion with the severity of the initial injury or trauma. Over 65% of cases are caused by soft tissue injuries. The cause of Complex Regional Pain Syndrome isn’t clearly understood and CRPS awareness in the UK is low. However the earlier a diagnosis of CRPS is given, the better the prognosis is for a patient.

There is no cure for Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS).  It is a chronic and life-changing condition.  There is a range of treatments available to help manage symptoms, including physiotherapy and occupational therapy, psychological therapy, medication, regional and lumbar blocks, neurostimulators, implants, alternative therapy and pain management programmes.

We Can Help

MW acts for individuals suffering from CRPS which has developed following an injury that wasn’t their fault. Instructing a specialist CRPS solicitor who properly understands the condition allows our clients to feel supported throughout the legal process.

At MW Solicitors, Our Mission is "To make quality legal services accessible to everyone" including those suffering from CRPS which has developed following injury. We provide expert support and guidance in what will be difficult and challenging times and put you in touch with other organisations that can help such as BURNING NIGHTS.  Based on our wealth of experience we will  seek to achieve a financial result that makes a real difference to your long-term security as we as providing the care and assistance you need. .

If you would like to talk to us about your case today call  us on 020 3551 8500 or use our Contact Us page

Coniston

MW Solicitors colleagues Stephanie Clark and Rupal Patel are proud to participate in Headway’s ‘Go Wild for Headway’ Challenge.


Stephanie Clark
Stephanie Clark
Trainee Solicitor

This two day corporate challenge consists of a 20km hike, a 30ft waterfall jump, scrambling & lots of other height-related activities set in beautiful Coniston and Lake Windermere at the heart of the Lake District.

About Headway

Headway is the UK-wide charity that works to improve life after brain injury by providing vital support and information services through its network of Headway groups and branches across the UK and Channel Islands provides a wide range of services including rehabilitation programmes, carer support, social re-integration, community outreach and respite care to survivors and families in their own communities.

Headway's local groups and branches work hard to raise funds at a local level to continue to provide and develop the services they offer.


Rupal Patel
Rupal Patel
Solicitor - Health & Injury

We Can Help

At MW, our mission is "To make quality legal services accessible to everyone", including those who have suffered an Acquired Brian Injury.  We will arrange a specialist Brain Injury Case Manager to help plan and implement a rehabilitation package which can incorporate your health, psychological, educational or occupational needs.   We will work with medical, clinical and other experts to value your past and most importantly, future needs, such as personal and medical care, income, accommodation and transport.

Where possible we will secure interim payments to assist with day to day and rehabilitation needs throughout the course of your claim.

If you would like to speak to our team of specialist Personal Injury Solicitors to discuss your case, call us today on 0203 551 8500 or use our Contact Us page to arrange a callback.

head injury x-ray

 


Philip Scarles
Philip Scarles
Solicitor - Health & Injury

If an employee is injured at work during working hours, a negligent employer will be held accountable for any injuries and losses that are suffered as a result.

However, what happens if an employee sustains injuries in an accident that occurs outside the usual place of work, and outside their normal working hours? Is an employer still liable for the accident?

Bellman v Northampton Recruitment Limited

This question was central to the case of Bellman v Northampton Recruitment Limited. Mr Bellman was employed by Northampton Recruitment Limited as a sales manager. His duties included recruiting drivers and placing them with clients. The managing director was Mr Major.

In December 2011 the company held a Christmas party at a golf club. The party ended at around midnight, after which Mr Major suggested further drinks at a nearby hotel and paid for everyone’s taxis. This was not a pre-planned extension of the party at the golf club, but most of the guests went anyway.

At around 2am, the conversation turned to work. Mr Bellman asked Mr Major about a new colleague, Mr Kelly. It was understood that Mr Kelly was being paid substantially more than anyone else. This line of questioning annoyed Mr Major. He lost his temper and punched Mr Bellman who fell down. Mr Bellman stood back up, only to be hit again by Mr Major, this time knocking him out. He fell straight back and hit his head on the ground, resulting in a traumatic brain injury.

The Trial

Mr Bellman pursued a personal injury claim against his employer, on the basis that Northampton Recruitment Limited was liable for Mr Major’s actions.

However, at the trial in 2016, the judge ruled that the assault had taken place outside of work. This was largely because the incident had occurred at the unplanned after-party, rather than the organised Christmas party. As a result, Mr Bellman’s work accident claim was dismissed. 

The Appeal

The solicitors acting on behalf of Mr Bellman appealed this decision. They argued that Mr Major’s position as managing director was connected to his wrongful conduct. Further, it was argued that the trial judge had failed to take into account the nature of Mr Major’s job, and the power and authority entrusted to him over employees.

The Court of Appeal agreed and held that despite the time and place, Mr Major was acting in his role as managing director, and was exercising authority over employees. He then mis-used his position when his managerial decisions were challenged. The appeal was allowed.

This decision provides useful guidance on the extent to which an employer can be vicariously liable for an employee’s accident. Therefore even if an employee is injured outside of work and outside of normal working hours, there could be grounds for a work accident claim.

We Can Help

At MW Solicitors we have many years’ experience of undertaking personal injury claims for clients who have suffered serious injuries from accidents at work.

If you have suffered a serious injury at work and have not yet instructed a solicitor, or if you have an ongoing claim and are unhappy with the way the case is progressing, our expert Personal Injury Solicitors are waiting to talk to you.
Don't delay, call us today on 0203 551 8500 or use our Contact Us form to arrange a callback.







NHS

 

The Clinical Negligence team at McMillan Williams Solicitors Limited acted for the Claimant in relation to a clinical negligence claim against Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust. 


Andrew Bentham
Andrew Bentham
Partner - Injury

The claim related to the management received at St Thomas’ Hospital in 1999 and 2000 for a serious bone infection in the Claimant’s right tibia.  The Claimant has sadly been left with a serious, permanent chronic pain condition which requires extensive medication and which has had a profound effect on his life.

The claim has a long and somewhat unfortunate procedural history.   A liability trial had originally been listed for March 2017.  In November 2016 it came to light that the Defendant had failed to disclose around 600 pages of crucial medical records.  As a consequence the trial in March 2017 had to be vacated and a liability only trial was listed for March 2018.  The liability only trial took place on the 7th March 2018 before Her Honour Judge Taylor sitting as a Judge of the High Court.  Mr Ben Collins QC of Old Square Chambers was instructed to act for the Claimant.

Summary

The Claimant suffers from sickle cell anaemia. On the 10th August 1999 he was admitted to St Thomas’ Hospital with a painful swelling over the right shin. Acute osteomyelitis was suspected and the Claimant underwent surgery for incision and drainage on the 13th August 1999.  Following the operation, the wound remained open and the Claimant underwent a long period after this operation when the exposed bone, including exposed cortical bone, remained uncovered by soft tissue or skin.  An attempt was made to close the wound in theatre on 3rd September 1999, but this was unsuccessful and the bone remained exposed on the 15th September 1999 when he was discharged home from St Thomas Hospital.

Over the following months the Claimant continued to have an open wound with exposed cortical bone. In January 2000 the Claimant was reviewed by an Orthopaedic Surgeon who noted the long period of exposed bone and continuing discharge.   A CT scan confirmed a cavity and a possible sequestrum.  The Claimant was admitted on the 16th March 2000 and underwent a guttering procedure on the following day.  A large area of bone was removed.  The Claimant was discharged home.   The bone infection developed into chronic osteomyelitis which has left the Claimant with a serious and chronic pain condition.

Judgment

It was argued by the Claimant that the Defendant’s antibiotic management was inadequate and that steps should have been taken to provide coverage of the bone left exposed following the operation on 13th August 1999, in particular by undertaking a local muscle flap.  It was also alleged that the Defendant should have undertaken further surgical debridement/guttering so as to facilitate a local muscle flap procedure.  It was the Claimant’s case that proper coverage of the exposed bone, together with a proper antibiotic management strategy, would have led to cure of the osteomyelitis such that the Claimant would not have been left with chronic pain.

Her Honour Judge Taylor gave judgment for the Claimant. She noted that on the 16th August 1999 the Defendant was in breach of duty in failing to take the Claimant back to surgery for further debridement, followed by tissue cover provided by a gastrocnemius flap.   The Judge held that had the Claimant been treated by debridement, flap and antibiotics, the likelihood was that he would have been cured of osteomyelitis, or at least free from it for a long period. Flap surgery would have succeeded and the current type of crater with friable skin would have been avoided. He would have avoided the long subsequent history of infection and pain specifically attributable to it.

There are a number of interesting aspects to this case, two of which are considered here.

This was, self-evidently, a case relating to matters which took place a long time ago. There was an incomplete set of medical records (and those records which were available were of the standards of the time – described as “telegraphic”). Nevertheless the Defendant did not rely on live witness evidence from any of the treating physicians or nurses who were responsible for the Claimant’s care.   The Defendant confirmed that attempts had been made to locate some of those concerned, which had not been successful given the passage of time.  Civil Evidence Act notices were served in 2016, some time before the trial, confirming that they had left the employment of the Defendant and efforts to date to trace them had been unsuccessful. The Judge noted that little information had been provided as to steps taken before or since then.  As a result the history had to be taken primarily from those notes which were available, and the interpretation of some key documents were in dispute between the parties.  The issue arose as to what inferences, if any, should be drawn from the records.  The Judge concluded that it would have been of assistance to hear from those involved what their practice would have been in 1999-2000, even if they did not recall all the detail of this particular case.   She held, therefore, that where the notes fell short, and were ambiguous or there were gaps, although the burden remained on the Claimant, the Defendant should not have the benefit of these deficiencies, nor of the unexplained lack of explanatory witness evidence. The ruling may be of assistance in other cases in which notes are limited and live evidence is not available to explain them or fill in gaps.

The case also serves as a warning as to the need for experts to maintain their independence, in particular in the circumstances of changing facts. The Judge was critical of the Defendant’s expert Orthopaedic surgeon. She took account of his “eminence and undoubted competence” but she “reluctantly concluded that in some respects in this case, his evidence was either diverted away from independence and genuine belief by errors underpinning judgements he made, which he then felt the necessity to justify, or that as a result his evidence on these aspects is not soundly based in fact”

By way of example, she continued:

“In particular, the error about the size of the wound led to his initial view both that the wound was healing rapidly, justifying a wait and see policy, and the options for tissue coverage of the wound. Similarly, his error about the unavailability of free flap surgery in 1999 underpinned his view that the approach taken in relation to tissue coverage was justified at the time. Once these errors were identified, he changed his approach, but only so as to maintain his original position, continuing to ignore some of the available documentary evidence. In this respect the criticisms made by the Claimant of his evidence are justified”.

It may be difficult for an expert who has formed a firm view about a case subsequently to accept a change of approach as new facts emerge. This is an example which demonstrates the importance of experts doing so.

We Can Help

At MW, our mission is "To make quality legal services accessible to everyone", including those who have suffered at the hands of medical professionals.

If you would like to speak to our team of specialist Clinical Negligence or Personal Injury Solicitors to discuss your case, call us today on 0203 551 8500 or use our Contact Us form to tell us more about your case and arrange a callback.

NHS

 

On 10th October 2018 the Supreme Court unanimously upheld an appeal by the Claimant that a hospital, whose A&E reception staff told a patient he would have to wait up to five hours before receiving treatment for a head injury, was in breach of it’s duty of care.

The Case

The Claimant, Michael Mark Junior Darnley, who was then aged 26, was assaulted in the late afternoon of 17 May 2010. Later the same day he telephoned a friend and told him about the assault. He said that he felt unwell and had a headache which was getting worse. His friend advised him to seek medical attention and drove Mr Darnley to the Accident & Emergency department at Mayday Hospital (now known as Croydon University Hospital).

Mr Darnley gave an account of the incident to the A&E receptionist but the receptionist told him that he would need to take a seat and wait up to 4 or 5 hours before he could be seen.  The receptionist did not notify Mr Darnley that the hospital had a priority triage system and that patients with head injuries were fast tracked and would be triaged within 30 minutes.

As a result of this omission Mr Darney did not wait in A&E because he had started to feel very unwell; he asked his friend  after waiting 19 minutes to take him home where his condition worsened.  He was subsequently taken by ambulance back to Mayday hospital where he was diagnosed as having a serious head injury with bleeding on the brain. Mr Darnley was left with a permanent brain injury and severe paralysis to the left side of his body.

The Court in the first instance and at appeal ruled that the incorrect information being given by the receptionist did not amount to a breach  and the Court of Appeal held that:

  1. The Trust did not owe Mr Darnley a duty to advise him about waiting times,

  2. The damage he suffered was outside the scope of any duty that was owed to him, and

  3. There was no causal link between any breach and his injuries; he was told to wait, but chose to leave. 

Mr Darnley’s defeat sat very uncomfortably with many Clinical Negligence lawyers.

The Ruling

The Supreme Court overturned these decisions and Mr Darnley was successful in showing that the receptionist owed a duty of care and that the duty was breached.  Furthermore the chain of causation was not broken because it was foreseeable that Mr Darnley may have left A&E after being advised that he would have to wait in the region of 4 to 5 hours.

This decision came as welcome news to many, who had felt that Mr Darnley had been denied justice previously.   Of course he would rely on the information given to him at reception and it was easy to see that he would have stayed, considering he was feeling so unwell, if he knew that an assessment of his injury would take place within 30 minutes, merely 11 minutes after he left. 

The Supreme Court’s decision is undoubtedly the right decision; Mr Darnley should be compensated for his injuries and patients should be able to rely on information given to them by medical and non-medical staff.

We Can Help

At MW, our mission is "To make quality legal services accessible to everyone", including those who have suffered at the hands of medical professionals. 

We are also experienced Brain Injury Solicitors who will arrange a specialist Brain Injury Case Manager to help plan and implement a rehabilitation package which can incorporate your health, psychological, educational or occupational needs.   We will work with medical, clinical and other experts to value your past and most importantly, future needs, such as personal and medical care, income, accommodation and transport.

Where possible we will secure interim payments to assist with day to day and rehabilitation needs throughout the course of your claim.

If you would like to speak to our team of specialist Clinical Negligence or Personal Injury Solicitors to discuss your case, call us today on 0203 551 8500 or use our Contact Us form to tell us more about your case and arrange a callback.

 

Brain and Vestibular Injury

 

In recent months there have been three judgments where the Claimant has sought to prove a subtle (mild) brain injury, claiming a number of ongoing symptoms and impairments, including vestibular (balance and dizziness) injuries.

Pinkus v Direct Line

The Claimant was involved in a road traffic accident on the M4 when another vehicle moved into the fast lane and collided with the Claimant. The injuries claimed included a mild traumatic brain injury and psychological symptoms. The Claimant claimed that his injuries caused him to lose his job a few weeks after the accident and that he has not worked since apart from some unsuccessful attempts at short term contracts. His claim totalled in the region of £850,000. However, the Judge found that the Claimant had consciously exaggerated and had given inconsistent accounts of his symptoms. The Judge held that the Claimant had been fundamentally dishonest and dismissed the claim in it’s entirety.

Hibberd-Little v Carlton

This claimant was involved in a rear end collision and claimed that she suffered a mild brain injury, a diffuse axonal injury, resulting in a cluster of cognitive and physical problems, psychological issues, concussion of the auditory and vestibular symptoms resulting in vestibular migraine and hyperacusis. She also suffered a soft tissue injury to her neck and upper thoracic spine. Her claim totalled £4.4 million. However, the Judge preferred most of the Defendant’s medical expert evidence and was not satisfied that the accident had caused an organic brain injury with cognitive, behavioural and audio-vestibular symptoms. In addition the Judge did not accept much of the Claimant’s witness evidence as there were inconsistences with her medical records and an absence of a clear timeline. The Claimant was awarded just £41,250.

Joseph v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis

The Claimant was again involved in a rear end collision. She complained of a number of ongoing symptoms including dizziness, imbalance, headaches, difficulty thinking, poor memory and poor concentration. A key factor in the judge deciding that there was no traumatic brain injury was the preference of the defendant’s neurology expert who was of the opinion that there was no post traumatic amnesia. She was awarded £388,181 but of the future losses claimed totalling £1,183,051, she was awarded just £151,800.

We Can Help

The poor outcomes of these cases for the Claimants demonstrate that each case is individual and requires the knowledge and expertise of a specialist Personal Injury solicitor when preparing and building a brain and vestibular injury case. 

At MW Solicitors we have many years of experience of undertaking brain and vestibular injury cases, achieving successful outcomes.  We are experts in:

  • Preparation of accurate and consistent witness statements.
  • Selecting appropriate medical experts.
  • The careful consideration of what each medical expert is saying.
  • Claiming sums appropriate to the injuries which can be proved.

If you have suffered a brain or vestibular injury and have not yet instructed a solicitor, or if you have an ongoing claim and are unhappy with the way the case is progressing, our expert Personal Injury Solicitors are waiting to talk to you.

Don't delay, call us today on 0203 551 8500 or email us at enquiries@mwsolicitors.co.uk

In an episode of Coronation Street this week Kevin Webster had to make a heart breaking decision to allow doctors to amputate his 7 year old son’s foot to save him from dying from sepsis. He had developed the potentially fatal condition after grazing his knee while playing football. In real life thousands of parents every year are faced with the same terrible decision.


Denise McKeown
Denise McKeown
Partner - Health & Injury

According to the UK Sepsis Trust someone in the world dies of sepsis every 3.5 seconds. In the UK alone, 44,000 people lose their lives to sepsis every year. This is more than breast, bowel and prostate cancer combined. Globally, sepsis claims 6 million lives a year. Yet with early diagnosis it is easily treatable.

Sepsis (also known as blood poisoning) occurs when the body’s immune system overreacts to an infection or injury. Normally the immune system fights infection – but sometimes, for reasons which are not  understood, it attacks the body’s own organs and tissues. If it is not treated immediately, sepsis can result in organ failure and death. Yet with early diagnosis, it can be treated with antibiotics.

The initial symptoms of Sepsis are flu-like symptoms, gastroenteritis or a chest infection. There is no one sign, and symptoms present differently between adults and children.

Sepsis and Clinical Negligence Claims

Jack’s half sister, Sophie Webster, was caring for Jack when he became ill. She sought help from a medical centre and a hospital but his symptoms were dismissed as a virus and she was told to give him liquid paracetamol. There was therefore a delay in making a correct diagnosis and commencing treatment. As a result Jack became severely ill and required an amputation of his foot to save his life. Sophie is now considering legal action against the medical centre and the hospital on the grounds that the delay caused the amputation.

McMillan Williams are specialist Clinical Negligence Solicitors. Our team of lawyers have dealt with several cases concerning a delay or failure to diagnose sepsis obtaining the maximum possible compensation for victims and their families to assist in rebuilding their lives.

We Can Help

At MW Solicitors our mission is “To make quality legal services accessible to everyone” including those who find themselves in a similar situation to the fictional Webster family.  We can help by acting quickly to secure funding by way of interim payment for rehabilitation, treatment and care packages whilst investigating the claim fully.

Our team of experienced and specialist Clinical Negligence Solicitors are here to help. Call us today on 020 3551 8500 or email us at enquiries@mwsolicitors.co.uk.

In recent days MW Solicitors Head of Clinical Negligence – Adult Claims, Injury, Hasina Choudhury, had a recent high profile Inquest Judgement which found “gross failures” at Croydon University Hospital (CUH) in their treatment of a patient which ultimately caused her death.


Hasina Choudhury
Hasina Choudhury
Partner & Head of Clinical Negligence - Adult Claims

This was a tragic case of a 52 year old woman who died after choking on a small lump of ham in a salad, which she should not have been given, as her dietary requirements permitted for soft foods only.

Senior coroner Selena Lynch, heard testimony from 19 witnesses before giving a verdict on Thursday morning of accidental death contributed to by neglect and stated:

“cumulative failures by hospital staff to follow hospital procedure and good nursing practice”.

Representing the family, Hasina argued that policies and procedures at the hospital were “routinely ignored” and nurses and healthcare assistants were allowed to “do what they pleased”.

The findings have forced both an apology from the Hospital and changes to their safety policy, stating.  A Hospital spokesperson said:

“we have introduced additional safety checks when servicing meals to patients on special diets, and ensured nutrition noticeboards are used properly so safe eating requirements are clearly displayed for all ward staff to see.”

The family welcomed the hospital accepting their failures and after the hearing Hasina read out a family statement to the press which said:

“A series of errors has led to the tragic death of our client’s wife. Her death was entirely avoidable, policies and procedures that were in place were routinely ignored and nurses and healthcare assistants were allowed to do what they pleased.”

After our client’s wife’s death, the hospital refused to accept responsibility for the catalogue of errors and information which was miscommunicated to the family.

The hospital now accepts their failure led to our client’s wife’s death. Their apology is welcomed by the family, albeit arrived late.

We Can Help

At MW, our mission is "To make quality legal services accessible to everyone" including bereaved families who deserve to know the circumstances of their loved ones death.

If you would like to speak to a professional to discuss your case call us today on 0203 551 8500 or email us at enquiries@mwsolicitors.co.uk

The Injury Team at MW Guildford are proud to support Headway Surrey with a donation of £5,000.00.  Headway Surrey is delighted and very proud to have been chosen.

Headway Surrey is a registered charity that supports people with acquired brain injury.  Brain injury is often referred to as the “hidden” disability.  Unlike other life changing conditions people do not think about it in advance.  It is only when it actually happens, usually suddenly, to an individual – whether that be through a road traffic incident, a sports injury or even an illness such as a stroke – which people actually realise how traumatic, debilitating, frustrating and even frightening a brain injury can be.

(Right to Left: Sonja Freebody (CEO Headway Surrey, Keith Churchouse (Chapters Financial)
Hasina Choudhury (MW Solicitors Guildford)

Brain injury is a largely hidden disability.  Headway’s aims are to help rebuild a person’s independence and to enable the family to cope with the devastating trauma that has affected them. There are bespoke individual programs of rehabilitation, both in their centre and at home, befriending, helpline and carers support.  They specialise in memory skills, planning, prioritising, behavioural and executive skills.    This is often slow-stream cognitive therapy, and may take many years of rehabilitation.  The changes are small and slow, however, positive results are still seen many years after their injury.  The Rehabilitation Coordinators set small achievable goals and targets for each individual and work tirelessly with them to achieve their best. 

Sonja Freebody, CEO of Headway said:

“This £5,000 donation is a much needed boost to our Surrey service. It is fabulous to be supported by the Guildford Business Community. Our annual running costs are £200,000, we are a small local charity however we achieve a lot for all of those who attend and their families.”

Sarah Corbett, Partner and Clinical Negligence Solicitor at MW Solicitors Guildford office said:

“In my experience, brain injury has a profound effect on the lives of not only the injured person but also those around them.  I have assisted clients with varying degrees of brain injuries from those with profound injuries to those where there is a subtle brain injury, only obvious to those who know them well.  Sometimes it is only by getting to know people with brain injuries that you understand the implications that any type of brain injury, no matter the degree, can have upon an individuals’ daily activities.  We were glad to support this local Surrey based charity in order to help it continue to work tirelessly in the support of those with brain injuries and also to assist those around them.”

We Can Help

The MW team is here to provide expert support and guidance in what will be difficult and challenging times and put you in touch with other organisations that can help such as Headway Surrey.  Based on our wealth of experience we will  seek to achieve a financial result that makes a real difference to your long-term security.

If you would like to talk to us about your brain injury case call us today on 020 3551 8500 or use our Contact Us page

 


The Injury Department at McMillan Williams Solicitors have been supporting the bold and colourful Headscapes Art Exhibition at the Jubilee Library in Brighton over the last month, collecting donations, recruiting volunteers and spreading the word of the incredible work the Headway East Sussex brain injury charity do for our community.

The exhibition displayed artwork created by people who have brain injury, many capturing the beauty of Brighton and the South Coast in an adventurous and vibrant style. Art and therapy stimulates many different parts of the brain on both the right and the left sides, which can work to improve the links between the component parts of the brain in order to make it stronger. Headway East Sussex offer art sessions where attendees are able to explore the feelings and emotions that they are experiencing due to brain injury and then express them through art. The sessions are inspired by accomplished artists and art therapy volunteers.

The volunteers from MW received an incredible response to the artwork; children were in awe and adults were fascinated with the influences and visions behind the artwork.

The purpose of the exhibition was not only to provide enjoyment through art form for the Brighton Hove community and beyond, but to raise awareness about the many pathways that Headway East Sussex is able to offer people with brain injuries and their families in their road to recovery.

The exhibition was a huge success and the Injury Department at MW were enthused by the support and great work that the charity and the exhibition have achieved. Working with individuals every day in our specialist teams at MW who have suffered brain injury, we understand the importance of expert rehabilitation and support for our clients and their families which is why we work so closely with Headway East Sussex.

If you would like to find out more about the vital work that Headway East Sussex does, please visit: www.headwayeastsussex.org.uk

We Can Help

The MW team is here to provide expert support and guidance in what will be difficult and challenging times and put you in touch with other organisations that can help such as HEADWAY.  Based on our wealth of experience we will  seek to achieve a financial result that makes a real difference to your long-term security.

If you would like to talk to us about your brain injury case call us today on 020 3551 8500 or use our Contact Us page

 

Contact Us

Translate this page

enfrdeitptrues