A leading surgeon has emerged victorious in a £200,000 court case after facing litigation from a mother weighing 16 stone, who was hospitalized post-weight-loss surgery due to “binge eating.”

In 2019, Simon Monkhouse performed a complex procedure on paramedic Alison Tarrant, who had battled with her weight following childbirth.

As a bariatric specialist, Monkhouse executed a significant and “irreversible” surgery, removing a portion of Tarrant’s stomach to curtail its capacity to roughly the size of a banana, aimed at preventing excessive eating.

However, when Tarrant experienced difficulties consuming solid foods, Monkhouse intervened with a secondary procedure. He attempted to expand her reduced stomach by inserting and inflating a specialized medical balloon.

Tragically, this intervention led to a rupture in Tarrant’s newly sized stomach, causing leakage and necessitating an emergency gastric bypass to save her life, as disclosed during the High Court proceedings.

Ms Tarrant was left in a life-threatening condition, which saw her hospitalised for ‘many months’ and fed through a tube due to malnutrition.

She complained of still suffering ‘ongoing severe health difficulties’ and sued the surgeon, claiming compensation of more than £200,000 on the basis the bid to stretch her insides should not have happened and she should have been given more support post-op.

But Judge Michael Simon at London’s High Court has now dismissed her case, finding the surgeon made the right decision in going ahead with the balloon procedure and that Ms Tarrant was simply unlucky.

Top surgeon Simon Monkhouse is pictured outside London’s High Court where he was sued by a former patient over a weight loss operation

Finding for Mr Monkhouse (pictured), the judge said: ‘There was nothing in Ms Tarrant’s presentation or from any of the investigations to suggest that the root cause of her difficulties was related to anything susceptible to counselling/psychological resolution’

He said the evidence supported his conclusion that ‘narrowing’ of the gastro-oesophageal junction, where the throat meets the stomach, was to blame for her difficulties in eating enough, pointing to expert evidence that the risks of the balloon procedure going wrong had been statistically ‘tiny’.

‘There is no doubting the extremely serious consequences that Ms Tarrant has suffered as a result of the leak,’ he said.

‘The court really does have every sympathy for her serious and continuing health challenges.

‘The court’s decision will come as a real disappointment, but the claim against Mr Monkhouse is simply not made out.’

During the trial of the case, the court heard that Ms Tarrant, from Eastbourne, East Sussex, had paid privately to have the weight loss op at the Spire Gatwick Park Hospital, in Horley, Surrey, in September 2019.

Sleeve gastrectomy is a surgical weight-loss procedure, in which approximately 75 to 85 per cent of the stomach is removed, leaving a cylindrical or ‘sleeve’-shaped stomach, the size of a banana.

After the operation, patients have to undergo a phased reintroduction to eating, starting with liquids before moving on to ‘mush’ and then returning to solid food.

But Ms Tarrant had expressed concerns she was struggling to make normal progress after the operation and in eating enough and keeping food down.

After an investigation, the surgeon decided to go ahead in November 2019 with the balloon procedure, deciding that her issues were being caused by the new surgically reduced stomach being too narrow.

But shortly after the stretching procedure, she developed a disastrous ‘leak’ in her stomach, leading to an emergency gastric bypass operation in December 2019 – reducing her stomach even more to the size of a walnut – followed by months in hospital and ongoing serious issues relating to eating.

Holly Tibbitts, for Ms Tarrant, who was still too ill to attend court and gave evidence via videolink from her home, told the judge she felt she didn’t receive enough support around returning to eating after the initial operation and that, had she done so, her difficulties would have passed without the need for her stomach being stretched.

She claimed the procedure should not have been carried out without clear evidence that there was a physical ‘stricture’ or a ‘stenosis’ narrowing the stomach and causing the issues, and which she insisted was not the case.

‘If there is no stricture or stenosis present, dilation will be of no benefit, but is likely to traumatise other tissues in the area,’ she said.

Anna Hughes, for Mr Monkhouse, however insisted he had followed the right path and that the balloon stretching procedure had helped Mrs Tarrant eat more easily before her stomach began to leak.

‘There is no suggestion at all that the problems experienced were due to a failure to stick to the diet or to any emotional eating problems,’ he said.

‘Even if, which is denied, the dietician and/or psychologist ought to have been contacted prior to the balloon dilatation, there is no evidential basis for any finding that this would have either led to a resolution of the claimant’s symptoms and/or that it would have meant that the balloon dilatation was avoided.

‘This is an unfortunate case in which the claimant has clearly suffered a very significant injury. The care provided by the defendant was reasonable given the information he had, or could reasonably have had, to hand at that time.’

Finding for Mr Monkhouse, the judge said: ‘There was nothing in Ms Tarrant’s presentation or from any of the investigations to suggest that the root cause of her difficulties was related to anything susceptible to counselling/psychological resolution. I find that the same applies to dietetic input.

‘There is no evidence that she was doing anything other than following the careful guidance as to diet and therefore no evidence that all the presenting information immediately after the gastroscopy indicated difficulties that might be resolved by dietetic input.

‘I accept Mr Monkhouse’s evidence… that the holistic picture was highly suggestive of some form of narrowing in the area of the gastro oesophageal junction.

‘I have concluded that there was no breach of duty as set out in the pleaded failure to provide reasonable post-operative support by not involving other multidisciplinary team members post-gastroscopy and pre-balloon dilatation.

‘Even if that had been established as a breach, I would not have been persuaded that, on the balance of probabilities, such a failure caused injury or damage to Ms Tarrant.

‘Equally, I have concluded that she has not proved that on the balance of probabilities there was a breach of duty by Mr Monkhouse’s performing the balloon dilatation in the particular circumstances of this case.

‘There is no doubting the extremely serious consequences that Ms Tarrant has suffered as a result of the leak. The court really does have every sympathy for her serious and continuing health challenges.

‘The court’s decision will come as a real disappointment, but the claim against Mr Monkhouse is simply not made out.

‘The claim must be dismissed.’