A widow claims her husband might still be alive today if a hospital had examined him thoroughly when he complained of excruciating headaches.

Stephen Gillham, 54, attended the William Harvey Hospital in Ashford twice within four days.

But despite displaying possible signs of a brain haemorrhage, the family say he was discharged and not given a CT scan.

The following month he was taken to hospital by ambulance suffering with intolerable pain and was vomiting. He was then diagnosed with a serious, inoperable brain haemorrhage. He died just over three weeks later.

His widow Chris believes if he had been diagnosed earlier he may have been saved.

She said: “There is a very good chance he would have made a full recovery if this had been picked up earlier. My husband had classic symptoms of brain haemorrhage and indeed are the symptoms described on the NHS Direct website.

“I feel very sad and cross that his death could have been avoided.”

An inquest into the death of Mr Gillham, a plumber, who was a father-of-two, ended last week. A verdict of natural causes was recorded.

Mr Gillham, a member of St John’s Church in Folkestone, died in August 2006.

The family were given an out-of-court settlement from the East Kent Hospitals University NHS Trust last year.

The family’s solicitor Sarah Harman said Mr Gillham was displaying “obvious signs” of a brain haemorrhage when he attended A&E on two occasions in June 2006.

She said the family had to battle for an inquest to be held.

THE East Kent Hospitals University NHS Trust has apologised.

A spokesman said: “We would like to take this opportunity to say again how sorry we are that Mr Gillham died in our hospital.

“We have accepted that there were ways in which we could improve our service to reduce the possibility of this happening again and these were introduced shortly after his death two years ago.

“The decision to pay the family compensation was based on expert views and reflected their views that the diagnosis of subarachnoid haemorrhage should have been established in June 2006

“After hearing the evidence of two senior house officers and Mr Mukherjee, consultant in A&E medicine, the family instructed their solicitor to inform the coroner that they would not wish the jury to return a neglect or systems neglect verdict.

“The family, although clearly concerned about the circumstances of Mr Gillham’s death, were satisfied that measures had been put in place to prevent similar occurrences from happening again. This was also reflected by the fact that HM deputy coroner Harris did not make a Rule 43 recommendation (a letter written by a coroner to a person with authority to prevent similar occurrences from happening again).”

THE East Kent Hospitals University NHS Trust has apologised.

A spokesman said: “We would like to take this opportunity to say again how sorry we are that Mr Gillham died in our hospital.

“We have accepted that there were ways in which we could improve our service to reduce the possibility of this happening again and these were introduced shortly after his death two years ago.

“The decision to pay the family compensation was based on expert views and reflected their views that the diagnosis of Subarachnoid Haemorrhage should have been established in June 2006

“After hearing the evidence of two senior house officers and Mr Mukherjee, consultant in A&E medicine, the family instructed their solicitor to inform the coroner that they would not wish the jury to return a neglect or systems neglect verdict.

“The family, although clearly concerned about the circumstances of Mr Gillham’s death, were satisfied that measures had been put in place to prevent similar occurrences from happening again. This was also reflected by the fact that HM deputy coroner Harris did not make a Rule 43 recommendation (a letter written by a coroner to a person with authority to prevent similar occurrences from happening again).”

THE East Kent Hospitals University NHS Trust has apologised.

A spokesman said: “We would like to take this opportunity to say again how sorry we are that Mr Gillham died in our hospital.

“We have accepted that there were ways in which we could improve our service to reduce the possibility of this happening again and these were introduced shortly after his death two years ago.

“The decision to pay the family compensation was based on expert views and reflected their views that the diagnosis of Subarachnoid Haemorrhage should have been established in June 2006

“After hearing the evidence of two senior house officers and Mr Mukherjee, consultant in A&E medicine, the family instructed their solicitor to inform the coroner that they would not wish the jury to return a neglect or systems neglect verdict.

“The family, although clearly concerned about the circumstances of Mr Gillham’s death, were satisfied that measures had been put in place to prevent similar occurrences from happening again. This was also reflected by the fact that HM deputy coroner Harris did not make a Rule 43 recommendation (a letter written by a coroner to a person with authority to prevent similar occurrences from happening again).”

The East Kent Hospitals University NHS Trust has apologised.

A spokesman said: “We would like to take this opportunity to say again how sorry we are that Mr Gillham died in our hospital.

“We have accepted that there were ways in which we could improve our service to reduce the possibility of this happening again and these were introduced shortly after his death two years ago.

“The decision to pay the family compensation was based on expert views and reflected their views that the diagnosis of Subarachnoid Haemorrhage should have been established in June 2006

“After hearing the evidence of two senior house officers and Mr Mukherjee, consultant in A&E medicine, the family instructed their solicitor to inform the coroner that they would not wish the jury to return a neglect or systems neglect verdict.

“The family, although clearly concerned about the circumstances of Mr Gillham’s death, were satisfied that measures had been put in place to prevent similar occurrences from happening again. This was also reflected by the fact that HM deputy coroner Harris did not make a Rule 43 recommendation (a letter written by a coroner to a person with authority to prevent similar occurrences from happening again).”