DEATH CRASH DOUBT
THE family of a motorcyclist killed in a road accident have called for action after discovering a blood test that showed he was drink-driving may have been mixed up with someone else's.
Steven Wild, aged 40, died after hitting a van head-on as he tried to avoid a braking car on the A53 in Stockton Brook.
The results of his post-mortem examination showed Mr Wild was more than twice the drink drive limit, but his family refused to believe he would have drunk so much.
After battling to clear his name, they have received a letter from North Staffordshire coroner Ian Smith, which admits his blood test could have been wrong.
Mr Wild's sister Susan Hulme, of Baddeley Green, said: "We want to clear Steven's name. Losing him was devastating, but added to that was this mix-up which left his memory tarnished."
Mr Wild, pictured below, had called in at The Sportsman pub to meet a friend before returning to his home in Washerwall Lane, Werrington, when the accident happened on April 26, 2008. Witnesses said he had just one drink.
Now, in a letter to the family Mr Smith has revealed three other post mortems took place at the Stoke-on-Trent City Council-run mortuary in Hartshill on the same day as Mr Wild's, and blood samples taken in each case.
The samples were then taken to the pathology lab at the University Hospital of North Staffordshire for analysis, and the results sent to the coroner.
Mr Wild's blood alcohol level came back as 167.3mg, the legal driving limit is 80mg, but in another case the result was 53.8mg.
Mr Smith said the circumstances of this other person's death meant a much higher alcohol reading had been expected.
The family believes the two samples were mixed up, and that Mr Wild was not over the limit. In his letter Mr Smith accepts this could have been the case.
He said: "Having looked at the background circumstances and given the samples no longer exist, only a fool would deny that human error may have crept in."
Mrs Hulme, aged 44, said: "When we got the letter we felt a mixture of relief and anger.
"We knew Steven would never have drunk that much.
"We think the procedures at the mortuary and the pathology lab should be looked at."
Martyn Brindley, head of regulatory services at the city council, said: "There was no evidence at the time to suggest that an error occurred. While we sympathise with his family over his death, our procedures are robust and thorough."
Mr Smith declined to comment and nobody from the hospital was available for comment.
8 Comments
by R Wild, Stafford
Thursday, March 18 2010, 9:13PM
“Mr Brindley's comment is very peculiar. Why, if procedures are "Thorough and Robust" would a coroner take the highly unusual step of writing to a family and explaining that mistakes were made?
Blood samples should have been kept for six months - they were accidentally destroyed.
A sample should have been given to the family for independent analysis - in these circumstances it was not!.
Far from "Thorough and Robust" it would seem.
The silence of the hospital and Coroner is also telling. What the family and the public require is an acknowledgment that mistakes were made - which has only happened reluctantly and in part, then some assurance that processes have been reviewed and corrected to prevent this from happening to another family - which has not.
No one is suggesting a cover up or deliberate malpractice but clearly errors ocurred and it should not take a grieving family and the media to elicit a response.”
by Me, At work
Thursday, March 18 2010, 2:35PM
“I think this is terrible.... to lose a family member is bad enough but to be told he was over the limit which could have caused the accident, when all along it was somebody else's sample is disgusting. The family must have been devastated and frustrated knowing he wouldn't have drunk that much but been told he had.
DISGUSTING!”
by L.J., Hartshill
Thursday, March 18 2010, 1:31PM
“I meant *blood*. lol. That typo added unintended severity to the question.”
by L.J., Hartshill
Thursday, March 18 2010, 1:27PM
“What would be the motivation for somebody at the mortuary to deliberately switch bloody samples?”
by B, S-o-T
Thursday, March 18 2010, 1:16PM
“John B, I think you are missing the point. I believe that Richard is suggesting the samples going missing may have happened on purpose, not the mix up in the first place.”
by John B, sheffield
Thursday, March 18 2010, 1:04PM
“Tragic accident and nothing will Mr Wild back. Richard, why on earth would a pathologist or lab technician deliberately swap two samples over. There was nothing in it for anyone. It's a simple case of potential human error. If most people make an error at work they may put a typo in a letter, or drop something without serious harm. If these guys make an error it's serious. This is such a rare occurance and at least no-one has tried to cover anything up. Given them a break.”
by Richard, Trentham
Thursday, March 18 2010, 11:34AM
“Given such doubt a full independent investigation is required by the Local Authority and the Heath Authority ombudsmen. I understand that the other person involved was a known alcoholic who had been drinking all day on the day he died. It is beyond belief that samples can go missing given the circumstances. It begs the question was this done on purpose? If there is doubt then the Police should be asked to investigate.”
by Cliff, SoT
Thursday, March 18 2010, 10:28AM
“Unfortunately there's a world of difference between 'may have' and 'did'. The outcome of the accident was of the worst possible kind for Mr. Wild and his family and we all share their grief. However, what must be beyond dispute is that Mr. Wild was in no position to respond to the changing circumstances ahead of him, and everyone should be grateful that there was no further loss of life.”