Issue 19
June 2005

S.J. Edney solicitors were established in 1996 and are a niche Clinical Negligence and Personal Injury Practice. Seamus Edney is a member of the Action against Victims of Medical Accidents Solicitors Panel, the Law Society’s Clinical Negligence Panel and the Law Society’s Personal Injury Panel. The firm holds a Legal Aid Franchise in Clinical Negligence.

As a firm we are committed to acting for victims of accidents and Seamus Edney has 20 years experience of Clinical Negligence and Personal Injury work.

 

NEW BILLS

Almost 15 new Bills were included in the Queen’s Speech which heralded the start of the 2005 parliamentary session. As well as the NHS Redress bill (which we discuss later on), other bills of interest to our readers include:-

• Corporate Manslaughter Bill
• Health Improvement & Protection Bill
  A legal duty of care will be imposed on Hospital Managers to keep hospitals clean
• Coroner Reform (draft) Bill
  This Bill – to be published in draft form for consultation – will set up a new Coroner’s Service
• Compensation Bill
  Very little detail about the Bill is available – the Government have talked about tackling the perception of a compensation culture; discouraging any false perceptions that compensation is available for any untoward incident that may occur and ensuring invalid claims are discouraged and resisted

 

NHS REDRESS BILL

An NHS scheme to deal outside the legal process with "low monetary value" claims for clinical negligence will be brought forward in this parliamentary session, the government recently announced in the Queen’s speech.

The redress scheme will be based largely on recommendations in the 2003 Making Amends report from the chief medical officer, Liam Donaldson although it may include independent scrutiny of claims and provision for patients to have advice from specialist solicitors when applying for redress, neither of which was included in the original proposals. Action against Medical Accidents, a charity that supports victims of clinical negligence, believes it has persuaded the Department of Health to incorporate more independent scrutiny and an element of advocacy for patients. The charity gave the announcement a "cautious welcome," saying the scheme could "either improve or impair access to justice, depending on the detail of the proposals” .

Peter Walsh, the charity’s Chief Executive, said: “The original proposals set out by the Chief Medical Officer would have been unworkable and unfair to patients. However, we have done a lot of work with the Department of Health in the meantime, and if they accept our arguments for introducing specialist representation for patients seeking compensation through the scheme, and if there is an independent assessment of people’s eligibility for compensation, it could be a viable alternative to litigation." “We want a scheme which would get to the bottom of why the error occurred and offer explanations and assurances that things will be put right, as well as getting people quicker, less painful access to the compensation that they need and deserve”.

The scheme, which would be overseen by the NHS Litigation Authority, could provide compensation without litigation for claims up to a value of £30,000.00, although the Government could opt for a lower figure. Legal Aid would probably not be available for low value claims, and Claimants would instead be expected to go through the scheme. Making Amends recommended that people accepting packages of care and compensation under the scheme would be required to waive their right to go to Court. S J Edney have their own concerns about this Bill. The non availability of Legal Aid for patients using the scheme is a major drawback especially as a significant proportion of our cases fall within the existing £30,000.00 limit and if this scheme exists then this would be a ground for not awarding them Legal Aid. They would either have to fund their cases privately or rely on a conditional fee agreement with their solicitor, which in practice, will curtail a significant number of negligence claims.

Making Amends also suggested a separate no fault compensation scheme for severely neurologically impaired babies, but that idea has now been shelved.

 

PLANS TO RESTRICT LEGAL AID DROPPED

S J Edney are very pleased with the decision by the Government not to go ahead with controversial proposals to restrict clinical negligence cases to an investigative stage only and to make claimants rely on a no win no fee CFA thereafter. This proposal was contained in the Legal Services consultation on the future of civil legal aid. It is a subject which we discussed in an earlier edition (Issue 17 December 2004). Also the proposal to remove the equity disregard (currently up to £100,000.00) in a person’s house when assessing their mean has also been shelved. If implemented this would have disenfranchised the majority of house owners from qualifying for legal aid.

Clinical Negligence Claims Statistics

Clinical Negligence claims cost the NHS nearly £300m in compensation last year it was revealed by the Department of Health on the 27 June 2005.

The Health Service paid £296m to settle claims by patients in 2003-2004, a dramatic increase from 1996 when only £1m was spent. This money comes out of the NHS budget.

Medical campaigners warned the figure could have been even higher. Peter Walsh, of Action Against Medical Accidents, said there were more than 850,000 accidents in the NHS each year causing 40,000 deaths. He added “while it is a large amount of money, it is a tiny fraction of what could be claimed. The vast majority of people involved in medical accidents are reluctant to consider legal action and if they seek compensation, it is because they need the money to lead a normal life”.

The Government hopes the NSH Redress bill will reduce the value of these claims in that fewer cases will need to be litigated.

Top of Page

This newsletter was produced by S J Edney Solicitors, at Alexander House, 19 Fleming Way, Swindon, Wiltshire. SN1 2NG - e-mail sjedney@supanet.com
Telephone 01793 600721