GAZETTE & HERALD: A HIGH Court judge has ruled that mother-of-two Helen Cooper, who died from breast cancer two weeks ago, was given negligent and misleading advice by the Royal United Hospital in Bath over her treatment.

Mrs Cooper's grieving husband Mick, 56, who believes his wife would be still alive if it had not been for the hospital, gave evidence at the three-day hearing in London.

Speaking after the verdict yesterday he said he felt "relieved" and "very pleased for Helen".

Mrs Cooper, 51, of Danes Close, Chippenham, died on September 21, just days after she herself gave evidence against the Royal United from a wheelchair.

Warned by doctors that Mrs Cooper's condition was deteriorating, the High Court had allowed the case to be brought forward for her to testify.

Sadly she died before knowing its verdict.

An NHS employee for 34 years, Mrs Cooper claimed that the hospital trust had failed to diagnose her breast cancer in 2000 and in doing so had prevented her from undergoing potentially life-saving treatment.

The RUH Trust however denied liability and claimed her treatment did not fall below an acceptable clinical standard.

Mrs Cooper's case centred on a July 2000 breast biopsy, the results of which were indeterminate.

She was told the results showed no worrying abnormalities but was nevertheless informed that she should undergo a further biopsy.

However, in a later telephone conversation with consultant radiologist Dorothy Goddard, the doctor's attempts to comfort her patient led to Mrs Cooper being negligently misled, ruled the judge, Justice Butterfield.

He said he was in no doubt that Ms Goddard should have told Mrs Cooper that there was a low risk she might have breast cancer and that a repeat biopsy was the preferred option.

Although Ms Goddard's notes said Mrs Cooper didn't want another biopsy, the judge said this was merely the consultant's perception and she never asked her. Mrs Cooper had been given the false impression that regular mamogram scans would be of equal value to a repeat biopsy and the decision was taken to opt for a programme of yearly mamograms without consulting her.

The judge said it was astonishing that no mention was made of the missed appointments in a letter written to the mother in October 2000.

In the event, the treatment plan of annual mamogram testing was not followed through and it was not until May 2002 that any further monitoring or screening took place.

Justice Butterfield said Mrs Cooper had effectively been robbed of her right to make an informed choice as to how she should be treated.

Mr Cooper told the court as a health professional his wife fully respected the views of her clinicians and had she been told that a repeat biopsy in 2000 was the preferred option she would have followed that advice.

"She was confused about what investigations were required but never indicated she would reject professional advice," he said

Yesterday Mr Cooper said: "The ruling justifies what Helen was fighting for."

The judge's decision now opens the way for Mr Cooper to purse his wife's compensation claim against the trust. But he must now prove the negligent advice caused her early death.