2016
promises to be another interesting and challenging year for lawyers who
represent victims of accidents and medical blunders.
I have
previously looked at the proposed increase in the small claims limit and
abolition of the right to claim damages for whiplash injuries. By the way, I
had completely missed the recent introduction of a right to compensation for
rail delays. So you can be compensated for the inconvenience of standing on a cold
platform but not for being injured by a careless driver!
I also have
to say that is encouraging to see those who represent victims, coming together in
order to fight these cuts –
The other change
which is on the cards is the introduction of fixed fees in clinical negligence
cases. The Department of Health has been attacking the cost of pursuing these
cases for a while. They complained that the costs claimed by lawyers acting for
victims were excessive and were a drain on limited resources. The spiralling costs
of claims were blamed squarely on the shoulders of victims and those who
represent them –
The point
has been made that the NHS would be better served by focussing on the
elimination of incidents rather than attacking victims.
Two recent
cases show the shameless inconsistency of the government's approach. In both cases the NHS
Litigation authority unreasonably refused an offer to mediate in relation to
disputed costs. In both cases the court found against them and ordered them to
pay indemnity costs –
Litigation
Futures also quote from the blog of Sir Henry Brooke, former present of the
Court of Appeal (Civil) –
“If, by way of illustration, the taxpayer had to pay £50,000
in each case more than he would have had to pay if those representing the NHSLA
had behaved prudently and reasonably, that would mean that £100,000 of public
money went down the drain for no real purpose. Oh dear.”
So on the one
hand we see the government attacking the conduct of claimant lawyers. Then they
themselves refuse to mediate and end up wasting thousands of pounds of public
money.
One rule
for you and one for me?
These proposed
changes will dominate the legal news in coming months. A determined government
with a majority, however small, will tend to get its way. But I hope that the
whole legal profession, on all sides, will unite to fight the plans, and the
illogical thinking behind them.
NHSLA and insurers often like to fight cases on the basis that there is no causative link between the negligence and the loss (which is a perfectly sound legal argument, of course). The irony here is the clear link between messing up how you deal with the legal consequences of having, er, messed up how you deal with medical matters and the costs generated by the whole sorry exercise.
ReplyDeleteAt One-Stop-Law we recognize that every accident claims is different. We are passionate in ensuring that every Personal Injury claim that we accept is actively pursued to the highest professional standards. That is why we only select the best legal professionals to represent our customers. We ensure that the legal professional we appoint to represent you is appropriately qualified and experienced to deal with your claim.
ReplyDelete