26 September 2022: Panel on the Skipton Fund and Missing Records - A

(There was a 30 minute delay in starting, for which the Chair apologised.)

This was the first in a short series of Panels where victim-survivor core participants appeared in a thematic group to give oral evidence. At the start of the Inquiry, the Chair asserted that those infected and affected would be the first to be heard and they would also be given the last word. The Panels are the practical manifestation of that commitments to the latter-end hearing of peoples’ experiences. It was not a format which had been envisaged by this writer but must have been considered the best use of time as the Inquiry proceeds into the end-game.

This Panel had a focus on people who had sought to engage with the Skipton Fund under the challenging condition of missing medical records. Six people sat up front and a seventh anonymous witness was in another room and was only seen by the Chair. Accordingly, the swearing or affirmation process took a bit longer than usual. There was a respectful and reverential atmosphere as people committed themselves to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

The first witness suffered a broken ankle in a skateboarding accident with his son. Apart from the inconvenience of the injury, he was very ill for months. At a later date he gave blood, was subsequently notified as having HCV, and was told it was either from illicit drug use or promiscuous sexual activity. Soon thereafter his wife divorced him based on the diagnosis and explanation and later he lost his job as an engineer. Some time later still he spoke with his doctor who had coincidently just read up on viral hepatitis. The accident and blood transfusion were mentioned as an alternative explanation after the doctor explored further. He was signed up for a trial of anti-viral therapy, the side-effects of which were very deleterious. The witness suffered significant financial losses as a result. His son had heard about the Skipton Fund. Nobody had mentioned it to the witness as a potential source of support. His application was rejected due to a lack of supporting evidence, despite doctors saying the probable cause was a blood transfusion. He did not appeal due to dyslexia.

The second witness spoke about her husband. He became increasingly unwell and eventually received a diagnosis of an abscess in his brain. The clinicians wanted it to grow a bit to make it easier to drain and treat. The impacts got worse affecting his eye and speech. It was as if he had had a stroke. A document pointed to some treatment with a blood transfusion when the abscess was operated on. The surgeon spoke with the witness and mentioned a blood transfusion, but there was no discussion about why it was needed. Her husband gradually recovered and returned to work, but his health continued to be affected, including from a second surgical intervention. He had to re-learn how to walk. Out of the blue a letter was received telling her husband to go for a blood test, which was done. A second blood test confirmed Hepatitis C, which was a shock. Nobody was able to explain how it came to be that the blood test letter had come out. Nobody admitted to requesting a blood test. The couple sought a private consultation which confirmed the HCV status. Her husband went through a year of Interferon and Ribavirin treatment which was very impactful. The treatment “cleared” the virus, but he remained very unwell. He was diagnosed with cancer of the larynx, painful skin lesions and other problems. He became very ill during a trip to the Netherlands suffering major organ failure, but he pulled through. However, it left her husband with even more severe health problems. The had to move house to have access to a downstairs toilet. Crawling on the floor was common as a way of moving around. His mental health was also very badly affected. Some time later her husband had a fall, suffered a gash which would not heal, he developed sepsis and he died. The HCV was not specifically linked to all his problems, but he had had to follow a strict health regimen, including not fathering children. Her husband found out about the Skipton Fund from the news. They made an application, but it was declined, and they were told to obtain more evidence. When attempting to do that it seemed as if nothing had been recorded about the operation. The further evidence they were able to supply again resulted in a refusal by Skipton via its Appeal Panel. Their explanation appeared to be based on their expertise but did not refer to certain parts of the statements supplied. The couple went as far as swearing in front of lawyers to their recollection of events, but the reconsideration was again unsuccessful. The sworn statement was not even acknowledged, neither was the out-of-the-blue Hep C test incident. The family were devastated after undergoing four refusals by Skipton. The Panel were minimising the surgery, the impacts, not believing anything the witness said, and giving the impression that the missing records were the fault of the couple.

The third witness spoke on the matter of his father who had suffered a ruptured stomach ulcer. He was given 18 pints of blood during the process. His father appeared to make a full recovery, however, some years later he had a bruise which unusually would not heal. He became very weak, his ankles were very swollen, so he was taken to the hospital. There was no discussion of Hepatitis C. The father was increasingly incapacitated, requiring significant personal care to be provided by his family. He died in 1991, ten years after the operation requiring the blood transfusions. A news item mentioned the Skipton Fund, so the family applied. Nobody had ever told them about the Skipton Fund. They struggled to complete the application due to there being no records. The GP said he could not help since he did not treat the father. Hospitals were contacted but no records were available, probably having been destroyed. The family elevated their correspondence to elected members and national agencies. In the interim the functions of the Skipton Fund transferred to a local body. The witness was referred back to the Scheme Manager with whom he had previously spoken without any helpful result. Again, whatever items of evidence they had were still not considered to be sufficient, and to that point no support had been received.