The Real Cost of Medical Negligence

We are being constantly reminded about a so called compensation culture in the country and the cost of having to deal with claims. This relentless criticism of victims can create the misunderstanding that it is their fault. This is particularly the case in Medical Negligence where victims who claim are made to feel responsible for draining the resources of the NHS.

At the same time the government is squeezing victims further by severely restricting access to legal aid.

In all of this the point is rarely made that the best way to avoid Medical Claims is to avoid the blunders in the first place. This is highlighted by the report in today’s Guardian  that the NHS estimates that it will have to pay out £235.4m to 60 babies who suffered brain damage after negligent failure to diagnose and treat hypoglycaemia – low blood sugar. This is a preventable complication which should be identified provided straightforward testing is carried out.

According to one midwife in the Guardian report –

"Hypoglycaemia is something that in the majority of cases we should be detecting and preventing."

The compensation figures mentioned seem high but these children, who lives are devastated, will require 24 hr care for life.

These cases emphasise again the need for families to have access to expert legal advice with legal aid. Just the cost of investigating the case can run into thousands. These are cases which cry out for justice at the public expense especially when a lack of investment in midwives could be the cause.

http://www.eadsolicitors.co.uk/medical-negligence-solicitors.aspx

Fighting for your rights

The mysterious case of the lost client

I once lost a client in court.

Now to lose a case is annoying and frustrating but an accepted professional hazard. To lose a client is a far more alarming thing.

Mrs. B had a rock solid case against the Local Council for housing disrepair. She had got to her later years without ever setting foot in a courtroom. So it was a new and unnerving experience. I duly met her at the door and escorted her to a conference room where she met her barrister who was wigged and robed and ready for action. He went over the fairly straightforward facts. He assured her that all would be well and excused himself to deal with another matter that was on ahead of us.

I went to make a phone call. When I returned she was gone. I waited long enough to explain a trip to the ladies but still no Mrs. B. I began to search with increasing anxiety, of the sort you feel when a child wanders off on a busy beach. But no sign. The case was called and delayed but she did not show. Thankfully, an understanding opponent agreed to an adjournment as something serious must have happened. This was before the days of mobile phones!

Later in the day I called round to her house and was met at the door by a very relaxed looking Mrs B. It turned out that she though that she had had her day in court. She thought that the nice man in the wig was the judge, that the conference room was the court and that it had all been over far more quickly than she had expected.

It is easy for lawyers to forget that we inhabit a world which is very alien to others. Why shouldn’t a man in a wig be a judge? We use language which might as well be from another planet. ‘We thank you for your letter of 7^th instant and will consider the same.’ Instant what? Same as what?? No wonder a solicitor was once told by his client that all lawyers were like bananas – ‘Yellow, bent and hang round in bunches….’

Can I say that if you ever hear me using strange words that you have permission to grab me by the throat and tell me to speak normally! Lawyers are mostly ordinary men and women doing the best for their clients. If you ever feel that we are drifting into another dimension – just tell us.

And lawyers – make sure you always tell your clients what is happening. Mrs. B is still a recurring nightmare after 20 years..

www.eadsolicitors.co.uk

We’ll never lose you!!

Game of Risk anyone?

Now not many of us will have come across The Information Tribunal. What is it? Well it is exactly what the name suggests. It is the forum for dealing with disputes arising out of the Freedom of Information Act (FOI). So if a public body refuses a request for information, or to disclose a document, the matter can be taken to the Tribunal.

Most of us have come across the controversial NHS Bill, the comprehensive overhaul of the National Health Service that seems to be universally opposed by the medical profession. As part of those plans, a risk register was drafted. This document set out the dangers of the reforms and, not surprisingly, opponents of the bill want to see it. An opposition MP requested disclosure under FOI. The government, which is clearly less than enthusiastic about disclosing the risks, refused on the ground that the register was part of ‘policy and development’ and therefore exempt. They argue that disclosure might cause civil servants to less frank about pointing out possible pitfalls.

As citizens shouldn’t such risks be just what we want to know?

In a judgment published last week the Tribunal ordered disclosure on the ground that there was a very high public interest in knowing what the risks are.

This decision seems to confirm the whole point of FOI. If we are to be a truly open democracy then we should be entitled to see key documents especially those which demonstrates the risks of what our elected representatives are doing in our name.

The Department of Health do have a right to appeal but it is to be hoped that any higher tribunal takes a similarly sensible view.

www.eadsolicitors.co.uk

Fighting for you rights

Farewell beer tax!!

Something a bit lighter for the holiday.

Have you ever wondered what happens to old laws when they are not wanted any more? Are they buried miles below ground, are they sold off on eBay, are they displayed in museums?

In fact many just hang around on the statute book meaning that they remain law centuries later. Many of these are well reported such as it being illegal for anyone to die in the Houses of Parliament or for an MP to enter the House wearing a suit of armour.

It seems that is still technically against the law to eat a mince pie on Christmas Day or to fire a cannon near a dwelling house – does that mean it is legal somewhere else? Mind you we are not alone. The USA is a veritable treasure trove. In one town in Nevada it is illegal for a man with a moustache to kiss a woman and in another state is is illegal to pretend that your parents are rich!

Many of these old UK laws are finally to be laid to rest as over 800 are to be repealed including a beer tax! Apparently the oldest goes back to the 14^th Century..

A spokesman from the Law Commission said –

"It saves time and costs for lawyers and others who need to know what the law actually is, and makes it easier for citizens to access justice."

Well lawyers don’t know every single law in existence, but it helps if some of the old ones are laid to rest.

www.eadsolicitors.co.uk

Keeping up to date for you!!

Have a good holiday.

Secret Justice?

It seems that many of the cornerstones of our democracy are under threat.

Yesterday there was talk of government departments having access to our email accounts.

Today it is all about secret justice. In many ways this is even more alarming. These proposals would lead to a wave of secret courts i.e. those where we do not get to see or hear what is happening. Effectively the government would be able to dictate what evidence should be kept from us.

Open and independent justice has always been an important part of our legal system. A system of which we have been rightly proud and which has influenced systems across the world. Anybody coming before our courts has always been entitled to fairness,  justice and independent legal representation. How can evidence be challenged if the parties and legal representatives cannot see it?

Under these proposals evidence could be kept back even from somebody’s own chosen lawyer. The evidence would be considered by a select group known as Special Advocates who are themselves concerned that the proposals are unfair.

These extreme measures exist in terrorism related cases but the proposed changes would give ministers the right to use them in any case where they decide it is necessary. It should not be for the state to decide how justice is done and seen to be done.

The All Party Human Rights Committee has rightly expressed concerns, describing them as unnecessary and potentially damaging. Their Chair, Dr. Hywel Francis said - “Closed Material Procedures are inherently unfair and the Government has failed to show that extending their use might in some instances contribute to greater fairness.”

http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/media/press/2012/liberty-welcomes-prestigious-committee-s-damning-verdict.php

Deputy PM Nick Clegg has expressed concern – which is what we would expect from a Lib Dem Politician. But will they break rank?

This is something which should concern all of us and will need to be closely scrutinised.

www.eadsolicitors.co.uk

Fighting for your rights

Tweeting for spooks

It was just last week that I warned of the dangers of tweeting first and thinking later. Well the stakes might be even higher if the government has its way over extending internet surveillance.

Plans are afoot to introduce legislation with which will greatly increase the state’s powers to monitor our emails, tweets, Facebook postings, texts and pretty well anything we do online.

This is, of course, all under steps to protect us from terrorists. But it is not to be limited to suspects. It will be access to everything that we do. Under the present law a warrant is required to access the content of say emails. We are being assured that the new rules will only permit access to times, dates and addresses but it seems fanciful to suggest that this will not also involve the monitoring of content.

This is a huge invasion of our privacy and one does wonder what difference it will possibly make in enabling us to sleep safely in our beds. If the authorities suspect somebody then they can get a warrant. So why is this enhanced power to intrude needed? Despite re-assurances, do I trust a government to protect my data when ministers are seen placing confidential documents in a dustbin?

http://www.information-age.com/channels/security-and-continuity/news/1670668/letwin-broke-law-by-dumping-documents-says-ico.thtml

The plans could well fall foul of Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 – the right to privacy. Now this can be overridden – ‘in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.’

Now if you imagine how many emails are sent each day in the UK – millions? billions?  – then how much of what we do and say will have anything to do with national security? As the Guardian’s James Bell said yesterday it is like looking for a tiny needle in a much bigger haystack –

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/apr/02/surveillance-state-coalition-email-social-media?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487

Politicians and the media dislike the Human Rights Act but the rights that it protects are yours and mine.

www.eadsolicitors.co.uk

Fighting for your rights.

Legal Aid - expensive savings!

I posted last year on the false economy of the governments proposed cuts to Legal Aid. 

Since then, the bill has taken a hammering in the House of Lords with a record eleven defeats. Despite this the politicians remain determined to drive home the cuts. But there may be some concessions made and so it is still important to understand the issues – particularly where removal of legal aid will not produce savings and might even increase the cost to the taxpayer.

One example is in relation to Medical Negligence cases. Many victims need to resort to state benefits, especially those who are disabled or unable to work as a result of the negligence. Once a case is successfully pursued those benefits are repaid to the Treasury by the negligent party – for example the insurers of a GP who fails to diagnose a serious illness. The payments are made to the Compensation Recovery Unit (CRU) which is part of the DWP. One outcome, presumably desired, of the removal of legal aid is that there will be a big reduction in claims. The knock on effect of this is that there will be a corresponding reduction in the amounts received by the CRU. So instead of the insurer meeting the cost of care, past and present, the burden will fall on the NHS. As far as I am aware no one has produced a report to say what the losses to the CRU will actually be.

Another increase in cost will be to the NHS itself and to the courts. Under the current system cases are screened by experienced lawyers. Only those which have merit are pursued. So the lawyers advising victims are able to filter out those cases which have no real prospect of winning. The NHS never, in fact, sees those cases. Once Legal Aid is removed, those who feel that there has been negligence will take their cases directly to the NHS and from there to the courts. Both bodies will face the burden of dealing with many more cases. It is estimated that a court hearing without lawyers takes about twice as long as one where they are involved.

Are we likely to see an increase in staff numbers or judges? It might be necessary, and if that happens where is the saving? Again, I have not seen any report of what the cost might be.

I hope that MPs will now begin to ask these questions.

In the meantime solicitors will continue to fight for the rights of victims however difficult that might become.

www.eadsolicitors.co.uk