I had my first experience of an aggressive inquest this week. A sad situation where an ill lady broke her arm, went home but then developed complications that ultimately led to her death.
The unexpected part for me was that the family turned up with a solicitor, who proceeded to cross examine myself, the GP and the hospital staff involved very closely. They used lines of questioning that inevitably implied that this was all the fault of the medical services and had we been more vigilant, the lady would have survived. An uncomfortable and distressing allegation for any doctor.
We were not informed that legal eagles (or should I say vultures?) would be present, and therefore had no opportunity to put our own questions, or have assistance with our defence. Happily for us, but unhappily for the poor family, the coroner commented that had the patient or her family sought help from their GP and the hospital earlier, the patient may well have lived, and came to a verdict that was close to being uncomfortably critical of the ‘friends and family’ of the patient. I’m sure this was an outcome that their solicitor didn’t warn them was a possibility when engaging their services.
Why do we feel that solicitors are a good way of finding out what happened when a relative dies? We have a robust and functioning complaints service, that requires an in depth analysis of any particular case. We have the coroner - who will not fight shy of criticising any lapses in care they find in an inquest. We have audit and mortality/morbidity systems in hospitals and, as a profession, doctors are actually quite good at trying to find where things could have been done better.
Introducing an articulate shark simply seems to me to ramp up the costs, and increase the distress for all. I’d like to know, in percentage terms, how often solicitors are actually successful in getting any cash for a family or patient who alleges negligence.
We seem to see fairly regular ‘fishing’ letters in the NHS. While a quick review of the notes and a medical report usually sort them out, it’s all extra work. I’d also like to know, in percentage terms, what proportion of the cash involved in any claim - costs as well as award - goes to the patient, and how much to the lawyer?
There’s no doubt high lawyers’ fees can damage NHS budgets. In a recent case solicitors E Rex Makin put in a huge claim to the NHS while acting on behalf of parents involved in the Alder Hey organ (or should I say histology slide) retention scandal. They claimed £4,479,957.06 (don’t forget the 6p guys), probably expecting the somewhat naïve NHS to simply roll over and cough up. Well, good luck to them, the NHS Litigation Authority challenged the claim and - guess what - after negotiation it was reduced to £430,000. Yes, that’s right, £4,049,957 (and 6p) less than the original claim.
Next time I ask for a pay rise, I’ll remember to hike it by a factor of 10 and reduce it in negotiation - or perhaps I’ll don a sharp suit, become a solicitor and start chasing ambulances…
Tags: Litigation

Aren’t we going a bit far? Are you suggesting we should have ‘evidence-based’ legal practice?!
Retired (and formerly sued) Orthopod.