Romilly Cummerson

Romilly is a senior clinical negligence junior with a particular interest and aptitude for cases involving complex issues of medical causation and/or substantial expert evidence. She represents Claimants and Defendants in respect of claims involving all branches of the medical professions and  a wide range of issues, including surgical negligence, diagnostic and prescribing errors, issues of consent; and medical product liability.

She is regularly instructed in high value and complex claims, often as sole counsel against a KC or teams of Leading and Junior Counsel.

For the past five years she has been instructed by NHS Resolution in respect of a large number of claims arising out of the use of metal-on-metal hip implants and is now instructed as part of a Counsel team led by Neil Block KC  in the NHS vaginal mesh litigation.

She is a contributor to Lewis and Buchan: "Clinical Negligence–a Practical Guide"

Cases of note

• HX v East and North Hertfordshire NHS Trust - Romilly was instructed by the Defendant in this £multi-million claim for damages for personal injury arising out of an alleged negligent failure to diagnose meningococcal septicaemia when the Claimant attended the Trust's A&E department complaining of a painful wrist and a history of flu-like symptoms. The Claimant required bilateral trans-tibial amputations and sustained severe bilateral hearing loss.  The claim settled following a joint settlement meeting (JSM) in which Romilly acted as sole counsel against leading and junior counsel for the Claimant.
• Various Claimants v NHS (vaginal mesh litigation) - Romilly is instructed as part of the NHS legal team led by Neil Block KC in respect of litigation arising out of the use of trans-vaginal surgical mesh implants in the management of pelvic organ collapse and urinary incontinence over a period of approximately 20 years. 
• RTX v PK and HCA International - Romilly was instructed on behalf of the First Defendant, a Consultant Cardiac Surgeon, in this claim arising out of alleged failings in post-operative care following aortic valve replacement and coronary artery bypass surgery. The claim alleged negligent delay in the diagnosis and treatment of cardiac tamponade, resulting in the Claimant suffering cardiac arrest and a stroke. All aspects of breach, causation and quantum were in issue. The claim raised a number of complex technical medical issues with regard to managing a differential diagnosis in the vulnerable post-operative period and causation of brain injury in a Claimant with significant co-morbidities and several competing negligent and non-negligent risk factors. Romilly was instructed as sole Counsel against a KC
• Various Claimants v NHS (Metal-on-Metal Hips Litigation) - Romilly is instructed by NHS Resolution in respect of a large number of cases arising out of the use of prostheses with metal-on-metal bearing surfaces in total hip replacement surgery. Over the last three years she has taken a senior role in a team led by Neil Block KC devising the NHS response to a sub-set of over twenty linked claims, concerning so-called mix-and-match prostheses (prostheses using a combination of components produced by different manufacturers). The sub-set of claims settled following a JSM. Romilly continues to advise as sole counsel in some ongoing elements of the metal-on-metal (MoM) hips litigation.
• RCX v Wes Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust - Romilly represents the Claimant in this action for damages for personal injury arising out of a negligent failure to report a mammogram as suspicious for malignancy. This error resulted in a two-year delay in the diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer. As a result of the delay, the Claimant required more extensive treatment for her cancer and sustained significant psychiatric injury. 
• CWX v Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust and Southern Health NHS Foundation Trust - Claim arising from treatment provided to the Claimant’s husband (“H”) by the Defendant Trusts for his acute onset depression and anxiety. H took his own life whilst under the care of the Second Defendant's Crisis Resolution and Home Treatment Team. Claims were brought on behalf of the estate and H's Dependents under the Law Reform(Miscellaneous Provisions) Act and the Fatal Accidents Act 1976. Romilly was instructed by NHS Resolution on behalf of both Trusts.
• ML v Hillingdon Hospital NHS Foundation Trust & Ors - Romilly acted for the Claimant in this claim for damages for personal injury caused by a negligent failure to manage his diabetic foot condition, resulting in a delay in diagnosis and treatment of Charcot arthropathy. As a result of the delay, the Claimant suffered severe pain with recurrent ulcers, episodes of osteomyelitis and sepsis and ultimately required a below-knee amputation.  
• GFX v The Mid-Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust - Claim arising from the Defendant’s admitted failure to diagnose an aneurysm on an MRI scan. The aneurysm was detected 5 years later, but ruptured before a CT angiogram could take place, causing the Claimant to suffer a sub-arachnoid haemorrhage. The aneurysm was coiled and a secondary coiling procedure was subsequently required to ensure complete occlusion of the aneurysm. The case raised complex issues of medical causation, in particular with regard to causation of an alleged severe loss of executive function, resulting in a loss of capacity and the need for 24-hour care and specially adapted single-storey accommodation. Romilly was instructed by NHS Resolution as sole counsel against a QC for the Claimant.

Romilly’s personal injury practice is weighted towards defendant work. She is a senior junior, experienced in dealing with high value and complex claims, including catastrophic injury claims, multi-party claims and group litigation. She is particularly adept at cases involving difficult causation issues and extensive medical evidence. She has a wide range of experience in all aspects of personal injury litigation including employers’ liability, industrial disease, sports injuries, product liability, occupiers’ liability, public liability, road traffic claims and aviation accidents.

Romilly is experienced in dealing with claims in which issues of fraud and fundamental dishonesty arise and associated committal proceedings

Cases of note

• Various Claimants v CNG and Cadent - Romilly is instructed by Eversheds Sutherland and led by Derek O’Sullivan QC in this substantial group of claims arising out of the New Ferry gas explosion in 2017. The explosion was caused by the deliberate, criminal actions of a third party, in respect of which a criminal conviction has been secured. The claim therefore raised interesting questions regarding the scope of the duty owed by the Defendants to the Claimant as suppliers/distributors of gas.
• DP v Randhawa - Quantum only claim arising out an RTA in which the Claimant sustained multiple injuries, including moderate traumatic brain injury, cranio-facial fractures and psychiatric injury. The key issues in the claim concerned the Claimant’s alleged dishonesty with regard to exaggeration of the ongoing effects of her injuries and quantification of the claims for loss of earnings and pension losses in the context of a young Claimant at the start of her working life. Romilly was instructed by DAC Beachcroft on behalf of the Defendant’s insurers.
• NG v PG - Romilly represented the Claimant in this claim for damages arising out of an accident that occurred when the Claimant was hit by a car driven by a family member. The accident occurred on C’s driveway and resulted in her becoming trapped between the vehicle and her home.  C sustained catastrophic injuries to the lower limbs, necessitating a trans-tibial amputation to one leg. 
• DB v Marks & Spencer PLC - Romilly was led by Derek O’Sullivan QC in this Occupiers’ Liability Act claim arising out of what appeared to be a minor slipping incident in the Defendant’s store. C sustained minor soft tissue injuries in the accident but subsequently developed a functional dystonia of the right lower limb resulting in almost total loss of mobility and significant long-term care and accommodation needs. The claim settled following a JSM. Romilly represented the Defendant at several interlocutory hearings and achieved a number of key strategic victories for the Defendant, in particular with regard to defining and restricting the expert evidence reasonably required to resolve the claim.
• MJ v Jones - Romilly was led by Neil Block in this high value brain injury claim arising out of an RTA. It was alleged that, in addition to the anticipated effects of any severe brain injury, the injury  caused the Claimant to engage in serious criminal behaviour and that 24-hour care/supervision was required to prevent further offending behaviour. C was resistant to the level of supervision suggested by his medico-legal team. The claim, therefore, raised complex issues of criminal responsibility, potential deprivation of liberty and the interplay between civil proceedings and the role of the Court of Protection in the life of a protected party.

Romilly acts for Claimants and Defendants in respect of solicitors’ negligence claims, particularly those arising out of the conduct of clinical negligence and personal injury litigation. In addition, she is experienced in veterinary negligence claims involving a wide variety of issues including surgical negligence, herd management, prescribing errors and antimicrobial stewardship. She has a particular interest and aptitude for cases involving complex expert veterinary evidence.

Cases of note

• JF v SB - Romilly is instructed by the Veterinary Defence Society as sole counsel in this claim for the loss of a race horse as a result of alleged errors in the diagnosis and treatment of infection. The claim involves interesting issues of causation, microbiology and antimicrobial stewardship.
• E v BHVG - Romilly represents the Defendant in this claim for the loss of over 300 kid goats due to alleged surgical negligence and management of post-surgical infection
• X v Crutes LLP - Instructed as Junior Counsel in this multi-million pound claim for damages for professional negligence arising out of the Defendant’s handling of the Claimant’s product liability claim. The claim, which settled following a JSM,  required careful analysis of a large body of complex medical evidence.