The Bermuda Hospitals Board has been ordered to pay a man $2,000 for pain and suffering caused by a delayed appendectomy.Kamal Williams had sued the BHB for $100,000 after he was left waiting seven hours before receiving the surgery.He alleged that his appendix ruptured because of the delay, causing complications, a prolonged hospital stay and permanent injury.Mr Williams attended King Edward VII Memorial Hospital complaining of a pain in his right abdomen, on May 30, 2011, Supreme Court was told.Within an hour of his arrival a doctor determined that the complainant may have been suffering from acute appendicitis, but that his appendix had not likely ruptured. At that stage, he ordered a CT scan.The scan wasn’t performed until five hours later.The data was sent abroad for analysis as the on-call technician had gone home sick; the results were not returned for two hours.Mr Williams’ surgery began at 9.24pm, more than ten hours after he arrived at the hospital.Surgeons noticed that the appendix had ruptured, leaking fecal matter into his abdominal cavity.Mr Williams remained in ICU for three weeks and, according to lawyer Jai Pachai, suffered lasting injuries to his heart, lungs and digestive system.Michael Leitman of Beth Israel Medical Centre in New York said a CT scan should have been performed on an urgent basis, and surgery should have begun within four hours of Mr Williams’ arrival.Alasdair Conn, of Massachusetts General Hospital, testified that an appropriate standard of care had been met as surgery took place within 12 hours.Puisne Judge Stephen Hellman ruled that the core issue was whether BHB breached its duty of care towards the complainant by failing to provide an adequate system for the diagnosis and treatment.He noted in a judgement dated January 9, that the risk of a patient with appendicitis suffering a ruptured appendix was at least one percent, and probably nearer three percent.“A one percent risk of serious harm is not inconsequential,” he said. “For example, a reasonable person knowing there was at least a one percent risk that an aeroplane would crash, would probably choose not to fly on it.“To take another example, suppose that an aeroplane on a long-haul flight developed engine trouble while in mid-air, this gave rise to a one percent risk that the plane would crash and that risk would not increase for the next 12 hours but remain constant.“A reasonable pilot, knowing this, would not wait for 12 hours to expire but would land his plane as soon as reasonably practicable.”In the case before the courts, Mr Justice Hellman said the four-hour period between arrival and surgery suggested by Mr Leitman was “optimistic”, particularly because the Digital Imaging Department was busy on the day of the incident and other matters may have been more urgent.He said results of the CT scan should have been sought on an urgent basis, and that need should have been communicated with the overseas agency.If that happened Mr Williams could have been operated on within five or six hours, he said.Mr Justice Hellman also found that Mr Williams’ appendix likely ruptured at around 3.19pm — two hours before he could have been in the operating room even if the CT results were given to doctors promptly.“In the circumstances, I find that the plaintiff has failed to prove that the complications that Mr Williams developed during and after the surgery were probably caused by the BHB’s failure to diagnose and treat him expeditiously,” he said.“Had the CT scan been obtained and interpreted promptly these complications might have been avoided, but I am not satisfied that they probably would have been avoided.”Despite that, Mr Justice Hellman noted that in the presented studies, one of the reasons appendicitis patients should be operated on quickly is to save them pain and discomfort.“If the BHB had not breached its duty of care to Mr Williams, the pain and discomfort that he experienced prior to the operation would have been shortened by several hours,” Mr Justice Hellman said. “To that limited extent, the BHB’s negligence did cause Mr Williams’ harm.”Mr Justice Hellman awarded Mr Williams $2,000 in damages for pain and suffering caused.Responding to the news, Mr Pachai said Mr Williams was content that his claim succeeded, but added that he will be appealing the Judge’s decision as it relates to damages.A BHB spokeswoman said: “BHB is presently considering the decision and has no further comment at this time.”