A MAN who went into hospital to have his toe amputated ended up with serious brain damage.

Now his wife is seeking compensation from Medway Maritime Hospital because, she says, both of their lives have been ruined.

Craig Hooper, of Trafalgar Street, Gillingham, suffered three cardiac arrests and a stroke while he was in hospital.

His wife Deborah alleges hospital negligence contributed to his condition.

It was June last year when Mr Hooper went into Medway Maritime after a big toe became gangrenous due to his diabetes.

Towards the end of July, he attended an out-patients clinic but doctors decided to keep him in. Then his condition worsened.

Mrs Hooper left the hospital at 8pm. At 11.45pm the same night she was told to return immediately.

“When I got there I found he’d had three cardiac arrests,” she said.

“He also suffered a stroke and was in a coma for three to four weeks.

“He was also severely brain damaged because his brain was starved of oxygen after the cardiac arrests.”

Mr Hooper’s leg was later amputated in another hospital.

“I have received a letter from Medway Maritime Hospital in which they say the problems were the result of a chest infection,” said Mrs Hooper.

“But there was no mention of a chest infection at the time. Apart from his diabetes he was basically fit when he went into hospital.

“How can you go in to have your toe amputated and end up with serious brain damage?”

Mr Hooper is now in a wheelchair most of the time.

Mrs Hooper said: “I am having to drastically cut my hours, partly to qualify for benefits but mainly to look after Craig.

“He’s like a child now and will never work again. He can’t swallow and has to be fed by a tube.

“Our lives have been turned upside down by this.

“I owe it to Craig to get compensation, so I can give him as good a life as is possible.”

A spokesman for Medway Maritime Hospital said: ”The Medway NHS Trust received a letter of complaint from Mrs Hooper in November, 2007, about her husband’s care and treatment at Medway Maritime Hospital.

"Following an internal investigation, a full report was written and sent to Mrs Hooper on January 25, 2008. The report individually addressed each of the questions Mrs Hooper raised in her letter.

“Within our response to Mrs Hooper, we asked her to contact us should there be any further points she wished to raise. We also offered Mrs Hooper a meeting with the consultants involved in her husband’s care and treatment – should she wish to discuss matters with them in more detail. We have received no further correspondence.

“If Mrs Hooper still has concerns, we are happy to discuss these with her and encourage her to make contact with the trust so we can discuss her concerns in detail.”