CRPD/C/17/D/27/2015
issues following a loss of cerebrospinal fluid during a discectomy procedure in 2007. The
author claims that she is a victim of a violation by the State party of her rights under articles
5, 10, 12, 15, 17, 19, 23-27 and 30 of the Convention. The author asked the Committee to
request the State party to release funds covering the medical costs of diagnostic testing,
treatment and rehabilitation and any other medical service necessary. The Optional Protocol
entered into force for the United Kingdom on 6 September 2009.
1.2
The communication was registered on 9 March 2015. The Committee, acting
through its Special Rapporteur on communications, decided not to issue a request for
interim measures under article 4 of the Optional Protocol to the Convention.
1.3
On 24 September 2015, the Special Rapporteur on communications, acting on behalf
of the Committee, decided at the request of the State party and in accordance with rule 70,
paragraph 8, of the Committee’s rules of procedure that the admissibility of the
communication should be examined separately from the merits.
A.
Summary of the information and arguments submitted by the parties
The facts as submitted by the author
2.1
On 18 September 2007, the author underwent a L5/S1 discectomy procedure at a
hospital in Wales under the treatment of a consultant spinal surgeon. She did not sign the
consent form for the procedure until the morning of the surgery; she claims that the surgeon
was running late and that consequently there was no time for an open dialogue to discuss
the benefits and risks of the procedure in detail. During the procedure, the author’s spinal
cord membrane was ruptured, which led to a rare surgical complication in the form of a
massive loss of cerebrospinal fluid and the subsequent development of a 8 cm by 4 cm
tense pseudomeningocele. The treating spinal surgeon attempted a surgical repair of the
spinal cord membrane, but his attempt failed as the closure was not watertight. The author
also claims that on 25 September 2007, she was discharged from the hospital despite the
fact that she was displaying symptoms of a further cerebrospinal fluid leak. The author
contends that the rare surgical complication she suffered has left her with a disability that
has devastated the quality of her life and left her in constant and debilitating pain and
without access to specialist medical care.
2.2
On 18 October 2007, the author was transferred to the University Hospital of Wales,
where her pseudomeningocele was surgically treated by a consultant neurosurgeon. A postoperative lumbar drain was inserted into the author’s lumbar spine and 20 ml of
cerebrospinal fluid was drained over seven days. The author was discharged from the
hospital two weeks after the surgery; however her health continued to deteriorate. She
claims that she was left without treatment after having been discharged.
2.3
Since the author was unable to obtain an appointment with a National Health Service
consultant, she privately engaged the neurosurgeon who had treated her in October 2007. In
December 2008, the consultant found a posterior pseudomeningocele 2.5 cm in size, which
was believed to be the cause of the author’s continued post-surgical deterioration. In March
2009, the author underwent a surgical intervention at the University Hospital of Wales.
Prior to discharge, her neurosurgeon informed her that she had to wait two years to obtain a
post-operative consultation, which the author claims far exceeded the maximum waiting
time established by the National Health Service. Nevertheless, in May 2009, the author
obtained a consultation with the same neurosurgeon. She notes that at that point the pain in
her head, upper cervical spine, lumbosacral spine, legs and feet was unbearable. The
neurosurgeon referred her to a University Hospital of Wales neurologist for diagnostic tests;
however, the neurologist was unable to provide her with any medical explanations
concerning her symptoms. The author claims that after having carried out only one
diagnostic test, a lumbar spine scan, the neurologist stated that she was experiencing
muscular tension and recommended physical therapy. After facing defensiveness, the
author did not seek further medical care in Cardiff.
2.4
In September 2009, the author put forward a request to the Cardiff and Vale
University Health Board to receive specialist medical care in London. The Board agreed to
2