North West Anglia NHS Foundation Trust

3. Mr R complains about the care and treatment he received from North-West Anglia NHS Foundation Trust between December 2013 to August 2023. He complains:

• The Trust mis reported the MRI scan he had in December 2013 as clear • Between December 2013 to August 2023 the trust refused to investigate the cause of his urology problems, instead blaming his transgender surgeries.

4. Mr R says he was subsequently diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis (MS) in November 2023 by a different Trust. He says the MRI scan from 2013 missed two clear lesions on his brain, and if the scan had been reported correctly, he would have been diagnosed and placed under the right care over a decade ago. He says he would have been able to start treatment to slow the progression of the disease. He says the missed diagnosis has had a massive impact on his ability to work, to sleep at night, and his mobility as he is in constant ongoing pain in his neck and spine.

5. As a result of bringing his complaint to us, Mr R is seeking accountability via an apology, service improvements and level 6 financial remedy.

6. Mr R first went into urinary retention at the age of 21 in 2011 and subsequently multiple times over the following years. Urinary retention is a condition in which the bladder does not empty completely, even when it is full. This condition can be caused by various factors, including urinary tract infections, blockages or nerve problems.

7. After suffering his first seizure in 2013, Mr R was referred to neurology and was sent for an MRI scan which at the time was reported as clear with no issues. Following this, Mr R was diagnosed as having ‘non epileptic seizures’ and was started on Keppra (anti-epileptic) Medication.

8. Between 2014 and 2015, Mr R underwent gender reassignment surgeries. Following the surgeries he continued to suffer with urinary retention and more recently began experiencing symptoms of weakness and tingling sensations in his body.

9. Mr R was diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis (MS) in November 2023 after having been referred to a different hospital for a further MRI scan and second opinion. Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a disorder in which the immune system mistakenly attacks the protective covering of nerve cells, known as the myelin sheath. This damage disrupts communication between the brain and the rest of the body, leading to a range of symptoms that can vary widely among individuals.

10. Mr R complained to the Trust on 20 April 2024 and attended local resolution meetings with the Trust on 25 July 2024 and 11 December 2024. The Trust sent its final response on 23 April 2025 and Mr R brought the complaint to us on 29 April 2025.

12. The law says we cannot investigate a complaint where a person has (or had) the option to take legal action, unless we consider this is (or was) unreasonable in the circumstances. We have discussed this with Mr R to understand his circumstances and the outcomes he wants. We do not consider whether legal action would succeed but whether it would be a reasonable option to look into.

13. Mr R says the Trust were negligent in their care of him. He says the Trust mis reported a scan he had in 2013 which showed he had two lesions on his brain. Mr R was diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis (MS) in November 2023 by a different Trust. He says the MRI scan from 2013 missed two clear lesions on his brain, and if it had been reported correctly, he would have been placed under the right care over a decade ago and been able to start treatment to slow the progression of the disease. He also says his urinary retention symptoms were never properly investigated by the Trust between 2013 and 2023, and the Trust just blamed these symptoms on his surgery. Therefore, he could have a legal route available, namely a clinical negligence claim.

14. Mr R says the missed diagnosis and lack of investigation had a massive impact. He says his mobility is affected, he is in constant ongoing pain in his neck and spine, unable to sleep at night, and he has had to take extended time off work. He also says he is unsure of how he will continue to work in the future.

15. Mr R is seeking an apology, service improvements and level 6 financial remedy. The amount of financial remedy Mr R seeks is at the highest end of our severity of injustice scale, level 6. A court would be able to carefully consider and assess and appropriate amount of compensation for the impact Mr R says this had on him. We would not want to disadvantage him by ‘under settling’ the complaint or proceed with an investigation, if we are not able to achieve the level of financial remedy he is looking for.

16. Mr R is also seeking an apology and service improvements. While legal action would focus on financial remedy it may also achieve an apology and service improvements as a by-product of this claim.

17. We asked Mr R if he had any barriers that would make it difficult or prevent him from pursuing legal action. He has not told us of any.

18. When we spoke to Mr R, he explained he had spoken to a couple of solicitors who had declined his case without explanation. He did not have anything in writing from them to confirm their reasons for declining. If Mr R speaks to more solicitors, he could find they have a different view. As an organisation, we need to be fully satisfied Mr R has exhausted the legal route and currently we think he could explore this further. Given the high level of compensation he seeks, it would be proportionate for Mr R to speak to at least two more solicitors to see if they will take on his case.

19. Taking all of this into account, we believe it is reasonable for Mr R to pursue legal action. We have decided not to consider the complaint further on these grounds. The courts can independently review the complaint and decide whether there has been clinical negligence, and, if so, decide on what amount of financial compensation would be appropriate. We hope this information helps Mr R to progress his complaint and to achieve the outcomes he is seeking.

20. If Mr R finds he does not have a legal route, he may come back to us, and we could potentially consider his complaint. Complaints need to be brought to us within one year of the person becoming aware they have reason to complain. We can put our time limit to one side if we consider there is good reason to do so. Mr R would need to come back to us promptly if he is unsuccessful with his attempts to pursue legal action.

21. Complaints give us a valuable insight into the organisations we investigate, and we recognise this has been a distressing time for Mr R. We would like to thank Mr R for sharing his experience with us.

1. We have carefully considered Mr R’s complaint about North-West Anglia NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust). We appreciate how important his complaint is to him and the difficult experience he has been through.

2. We have decided not to consider Mr R’s complaint further. This is because we have decided it is reasonable for Mr R to pursue a legal remedy by way of a clinical negligence claim.