“Though the Witch knew the Deep Magic, there is a magic deeper still which she did not know. Her knowledge goes back only to the dawn of time. But if she could have looked a little further back… she would have known that when a willing victim who had committed no treachery was killed in a traitor’s stead, the Table would crack and Death itself would start working backward.” - Aslan, C.S. Lewis, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe
Showing posts with label £23M claim. Show all posts
Showing posts with label £23M claim. Show all posts

£23 Million: The Price of Ignoring Medical Evidence and Inviting Retaliation


⟡ The Hospitals That Called Social Services When I Asked to Breathe ⟡

Filed: 1 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/GMC/DUAL-SUBMISSION-NEGLIGENCE
📎 Download PDF — 2025-05-01_SWANK_GMC_Complaint_StThomas_Chelsea_DisabilityNeglect_SafeguardingAbuse_£23MClaim.pdf

I. £23 Million: The Price of Ignoring Medical Evidence and Inviting Retaliation

This dual complaint, filed with the General Medical Council, names:

  • Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust

  • Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust

The charges:

  • Clinical negligence during documented respiratory crisis

  • Dismissal of protected disability adjustments

  • Use of “safeguarding” as reputational defence

  • Retaliatory contact disguised as care coordination

What they couldn’t treat, they investigated.
What they ignored, they weaponised.
What they feared — was documentation.

II. When Hospitals Operate Like Surveillance Branches

The evidence shows:

  • Medical notes vanished from timelines

  • Allergy labels overridden with procedural shrugs

  • Formal complaints followed by multi-agency escalation

  • Disability treated not as protected, but inconvenient

This wasn’t poor communication.
It was bureaucratic violence under clinical letterhead.

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because medical malpractice is not neutral when it follows complaint.
Because no hospital has the right to summon safeguarding for a diagnosis it refused to read.
Because when patient harm is followed by agency collusion, the bill is measured in millions — and exhibits.

Let the record show:

  • The doctors knew the condition

  • The trust ignored the adjustment

  • The patient collapsed

  • And SWANK — filed the damages, formatted by respiratory episode

This isn’t a case file.
It’s a legal artefact of NHS-enabled sabotage.

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not permit the NHS to use “concern” as a shield against liability.
We do not allow hospitals to threaten disabled mothers into submission.
We do not believe safeguarding is lawful when it follows whistleblowing.

Let the record show:

The care was delayed.
The asthma worsened.
The mother reported.
And SWANK — filed £23 million in civil response.

This is not anecdotal.
It’s court-sealed, regulator-notified, and irrevocably archived.




No comments:

What the NHS Missed — Filed, Bound, and Worth £23 Million


⟡ The Bundle They Pretended Not to Read ⟡

Filed: 1 March 2025
Reference: SWANK/GMC/ATTACHMENTS-BUNDLE
📎 Download PDF — 2025-03-01_SWANK_GMC_AttachmentsBundle_StThomas_Chelsea_DisabilityNeglect_SafeguardingEvidence_£23MClaim.pdf

I. What the NHS Missed — Filed, Bound, and Worth £23 Million

This supporting bundle accompanies the formal complaint submitted to the General Medical Council against:

  • Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust

  • Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust

The documents within:

  • Confirm written disability adjustments issued and then ignored

  • Detail harm caused by denied treatment, forced verbal demands, and retaliatory escalation

  • Show medical events misrepresented — and then used against the patient

  • Evidence systemic failure not as mistake, but as coordinated indifference

They didn’t lose the paperwork.
They read it — and acted against it.

II. What Was Sent. What They Pretended Wasn’t There.

Included in the bundle:

  • Clinical diagnoses supporting written-only contact

  • Allergy documentation contradicted by treatment

  • Internal NHS notes minimising trauma and bypassing consent

  • A chronology of safeguarding escalation that followed every complaint filed

This isn’t "oversight."
It’s strategic documentation avoidance — and now it’s logged at regulator level.

What they tried to unsee, we printed — and archived.

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because harm unfiled is harm unpriced.
Because when a trust ignores adjustment documentation, that is legal liability in draft.
Because retaliation through omission is still retaliation — and the attachments prove it.

Let the record show:

  • The harm was documented

  • The retaliation was traceable

  • The negligence was systemic

  • And SWANK — filed the attachments they pretended didn’t exist

This isn’t a paper trail.
It’s an institutional indictment, bundled in medical contempt.

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not allow clinical harm to be reframed as patient miscommunication.
We do not accept regulator shrugs in response to £23 million in injury.
We do not permit omissions to become excuses.

Let the record show:

The evidence was prepared.
The hospitals were informed.
The complaints were punished.
And SWANK — filed every missing paragraph.

This isn’t a follow-up.
It’s the forensic tail of a system trying not to see itself.




No comments:

Documented Obsessions