A legal battle between Bermuda Hospitals Board and a patient who suffered an agonising wait for surgery has attracted the attention of lawyers for Britain’s national health service.

The NHS Litigation Authority has applied to intervene in the case involving Kamal Williams and BHB when it goes before the Privy Council in November because of the impact the outcome could have on medical malpractice cases there.

It fears that if BHB loses its appeal it could set a legal precedent and pave the way for a flood of claims of a similar nature against NHS hospitals.

Mr Williams successfully sued BHB for damages after he suffered a burst appendix followed by life-threatening septic shock at King Edward VII Memorial Hospital in 2011.

Publicly funded BHB has opted to go to Bermuda’s highest court of appeal, in London, to avoid the $58,000 payout and Mr Williams is defending the action, despite his mounting legal costs.

“I knew it was going to be a tough ride but I didn’t think I was going to have to get this far,” he told The Royal Gazette, of his decision to sue BHB.

“It’s been four years at this point. I have to see it through.

“People in Bermuda need to pay attention. We want good healthcare and we are not trying to bankrupt the hospital but you need to take a stand if something is wrong and see it through.

“Right now, it’s just about the law. It’s not about me any more.”

Mr Williams, a father of two from Southampton, was admitted to KEMH’s emergency room on May 30, 2011, with serious stomach pains.

Screaming in agony by 11.44am, he did not have a scan to check for possible appendicitis until after 5pm, and the results of the scan were not received from an overseas agency — in Australia — until after 7pm.

His operation began three hours later when surgeons discovered his appendix had ruptured, causing complications including sepsis.

Mr Williams was on a respirator for the next seven days.

The Privy Council will consider whether the lower courts applied the correct legal test to the injuries he suffered.

The Supreme Court judge who heard the patient’s original claim for $100,000 against BHB considered whether “but for” the hospital’s negligence, he would have suffered those injuries.

Puisne Judge Stephen Hellman initially awarded limited damages for pain and suffering, finding that while KEMH negligently breached its duty of care to Mr Williams, he failed to prove that the complications during and after his operation were probably caused by the failure to diagnose his illness and treat him swiftly.

Mr Williams appealed that decision to the Court of Appeal, which ruled that the correct test to apply was whether the hospital “materially contributed” to his injuries. It sent the case back to the Supreme Court, where the patient was awarded $58,000 by Mr Justice Hellman, who said: “Mr Williams has undergone one of the most unpleasant experiences that a human can undergo. That experience was life-threatening.”

It is understood the case before the Privy Council could set a precedent because the “material contribution” argument has previously only been allowed in very limited circumstances and not those involving hospitals.

Mr Williams’s QC, Benjamin Browne, will argue that his case justifies a departure from the “but for” test and responsibility should be attributed to BHB, because of its breach of duty.

BHB is likely to counter that the usual limitations should apply and it would be overly onerous on hospitals to attribute responsibility to them in such cases.

The same argument is expected to be made by the NHS Litigation Authority, if it is given permission to intervene.

Nick Rigg, from the NHS Litigation Authority, told The Royal Gazette: “The NHS Litigation Authority can confirm that we have applied to intervene in the case of Kamal Williams vs Bermuda Hospitals Board and that we are awaiting the Privy Council’s decision on this.”

Mr Williams said the case had cost him thousands of dollars but he had no choice but to defend BHB’s action.

“If it goes south for me, I’ll be in debt for a long time,” added the risk analyst. “But it’s common sense to me. I almost died.”

BHB has previously said it could not comment on the specifics of its appeal but has confirmed its insurers are covering all legal costs.

A spokeswoman said last year: “There are legal and clinical implications related to this case that need to be appealed.”

The case is due to be heard on November 18.