Posts Tagged ‘Negligence claim’

“Spiralling negligence claims unsustainable”

By Mike Broad - 5th August 2011 3:19 pm

The NHS Litigation Authority has criticised the damages system for driving “rapid growth in claims numbers” despite no increase in mistakes by health professionals.

Claims for damages rose by 30% in 2010-11 from 6,652 the previous year to 8,655.

A ‘no-win, no-fee’ system - called ‘conditional fee arrangements’ - was set up under the previous government with a view to giving greater access to justice. Claimants do not have to pay for lawyers upfront, instead paying them a large ‘success fee’ if they win.

Steve Walker, chief executive of the NHSLA, said: “We believe very strongly that a regime which allows success fees and the recoverability of After the Event insurance premiums makes litigation so profitable that solicitors and so-called ‘claims farmers’ are drawn into the market thereby fuelling the rise in claims volumes we have experienced.”

He said he was “delighted” that the Ministry of Justice is taking forward recommendations made by Lord Justice Jackson, which would make it no longer possible to recover success fees or After the Event premiums from the losing side.

Correspondingly, the money set aside for settling NHS claims has risen by 12% from £15 billion to £16.8 billion.

Defence body MPS questioned the sustainability of rising clinical negligence costs.

Tony Mason, chief executive of MPS, said: “It is just and right that patients who experience harm through negligent care in general practice or in a hospital, receive fair compensation. It is alarming, however, that the cost of negligence claims is increasing at such a rapid rate.

“In a time when the NHS is so financially constrained, these escalating costs mean that less money is available for public healthcare. MPS believes that the time is right for a public discussion on the cost of clinical negligence claims to society, as this upward trend appears unsustainable.”

Read the NHSLA annual report.

Plans to tackle legal costs in negligence cases

By Mike Broad - 19th November 2010 11:26 am

The government’s latest proposals to control civil litigation costs, which should temper spiralling legal costs in medical negligence cases, have been welcomed by defence bodies.

The MDU welcomed a Ministry of Justice consultation which, like the report by Lord Justice Jackson earlier this year, proposes measures aimed at reducing the disproportionate costs of civil litigation for the defendant.

Costs of settling clinical negligence claims have spiralled in the last 30 years with the average claimant’s legal costs increasing by three times the rate of inflation since 1981.

The key recommendation is that, under a reformed conditional fee agreement (CFA) regime, success fees and after the event (ATE) insurance premiums should no longer be recoverable from the losing side. Lord Justice Jackson suggested that abolishing recoverability of CFA success fees and ATE insurance premiums would ensure that claimants on CFAs take an interest in the costs being incurred on their behalf.

“Justice is not just about allowing claimants to bring reasonable actions,” he said. “But also about ensuring that defendants can resist those claims which should not succeed, without being liable for disproportionate costs.”

Figures show that, in 2010, the average claimant’s costs paid by the MDU on behalf of its members was £44,500, 34 times higher than the figure in 1981 of just £1,300. The average annual increase in claimants’ legal costs over the last 30 years was 13% compared with an average increase in the Retail Price Index of just 4%.

Dr Christine Tomkins, MDU chief executive, said: “We are pleased that the government is proposing to take forward many of the proposals recommended by Lord Justice Jackson. If implemented, we believe the changes will make the civil litigation procedure fairer, making costs paid to claimants’ solicitors more proportionate to the damages claimants’ receive, without impairing claimants’ access to justice.

“We have long argued that the current situation, where claimants’ legal costs can be as much as thirty times the compensation awarded to the damaged patient, impugns the system and is very unfair to doctors and dentists who are currently funding these legal costs.”

In one MDU case, for example, a claim for delayed treatment of a wound infection on a patient’s leg was settled for £1,000 damages paid to the claimant patient. The claimant’s lawyer’s costs were £29,000 which included a success fee of £7,500 and an after the event insurance premium of £2,940. MDU costs as defendant were minimal.

Read the consultation in full.

Legal costs of negligence claims spiral upwards

By Mike Broad - 25th October 2010 9:38 am

The costs of settling clinical negligence claims have spiralled in the last 30 years, a defence body claims.

The MDU reveals that the average claimant’s legal costs had increased by three times the rate of inflation since 1981.

In 2010, the average claimant’s costs paid by the MDU on behalf of its members was 34 times higher than the figure in 1981. It was just £1,300 in 1981 compared with £44,500 this year.

The average annual increase in claimants’ legal costs over the last 30 years was 13% compared with an average increase in the Retail Price Index of 4%.

Dr Christine Tomkins, MDU chief executive, called for action to be taken to address excessive legal costs.

“The level of claimants’ solicitors’ costs has accelerated in the last 30 years, well above the rate of inflation and these costs are often completely out of kilter with the damages awarded to the patient. This disproportionality has been even more marked in the last five years where, on average, costs represented 40% of the damages paid and in many cases, far exceeded damages. By comparison, between 1981 and 1990, costs represented just 15% of the damages awarded,” she said.

“Fortunately, there is light at the end of the tunnel thanks to Lord Justice Jackson’s report. It made recommendations which, if implemented, should restore balance to the system such as a cap on success fees and the end to ‘after the event insurance’ for clinical negligence claims as well as reform of the way costs are managed during the litigation process. We expect the Ministry of Justice to publish a consultation on Lord Justice Jackson’s report and we will be submitting a response on behalf of our members.”

Read more on Lord Justice Jackson’s report.

‘No win no fee’ lawyers grow negligence claims

By Francesca Robinson - 4th August 2010 6:55 pm

Personal injury lawyers are being blamed for soaring clinical negligence claims which are spiralling at the rate of 10% a year.

A record £15 billion has been set aside for NHS claims, reveals the NHS Litigation Authority’s (NHSLA) annual report.

Some 6,652 clinical negligence claims were reported in 2009/10, a 10% increase over the previous year. This follows an 11% increase in claims in 2008/09.

The rise is blamed on the so-called ‘no win no fee’ market which allows claimants to litigate without any financial risk and proves very lucrative for solicitors who work on this basis.

A review of civil litigation costs by Lord Justice (Rupert) Jackson reported in January that the costs of conducting litigation have become significantly disproportionate to the benefits in many cases.

NHSLA chief executive Stephen Walker said that a city of London solicitor succeeding in a clinical negligence claim could bill at £450 per hour and seek up uplift of 100% as a success fee. This is significantly higher than the legal rates for the best defence lawyers that the NHSLA can secure at £205 an hour with no success fees.

“We can only hope that the courts will adopt the spirit of Lord Justice Jackson’s recommendations in considering costs issues,” he said.

The Jackson review has produced a blueprint for reform designed to bring costs under control and make them fairer. It recommends that success fees and after the event insurance premiums should be irrecoverable in ‘no win no fee’ cases (CFA - conditional fee agreements), as these are the greatest contributors to disproportionate costs.

The government is to consult on Lord Justice Jackson’s reforms in the autumn. Justice minister Jonathan Djanogly said that Jackson’s recommendations will be taken forward by the government “as a matter of priority” and that CFA reform should lead to significant costs savings, while still enabling those who need access to justice to obtain it’. He added that CFAs had played a role in giving access to justice but high costs under the existing arrangements had now become a serious concern, particularly in clinical negligence cases against the NHSLA.

But the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers plans to fight the proposed reforms. It argues that they would be detrimental to claimants. “Shifting costs onto claimants is a step backwards, and could disenfranchise many injured people from the justice system, because they simply won’t be able to afford to bring legitimate cases,” said a spokesman.

MPS chief executive, Tony Mason, said increased life expectancy and the cost of care packages were also factors in driving up costs.

“Every year we have seen a significant increase in legal costs. It is not unusual for claimant legal costs to exceed compensation payouts in clinical negligence cases. In some lower value cases we see costs five to ten times the value of the compensation awarded. For cases in the last five years in England and Wales where we have paid compensation of up to £100,000, claimant legal fees were more than 90% of the damages paid out. Patients deserve fair compensation, but we must do something to stem the tide of excessive legal costs.”

Jill Harding, head of claims at the MDU, said: “Doctors may be concerned to hear about the 10% increase in the number of NHS negligence claims. It is important to point out however that an increase in claim notifications is not an indication of a decline in medical standards.”

Demystifying the negligence claim process

By Dr Sharmala Moodley, MDU deputy head of claims - 28th February 2010 12:53 pm

The MDU’s claim-handling team manage hundreds of claims each year arising from members’ work in independent hospitals or primary care. Common reasons for claims include allegations of failed or delayed diagnosis, medication errors, administrative errors, concerns about seeking consent, communication problems, and other treatment mishaps, such as surgical errors.

The number of claims notified to us by members has remained stable and only around 2% ever get to trial but this is little consolation for a doctor who receives a letter from a claimants’ solicitor. Doctors frequently feel angry and distressed and some knowledge of the way in which the claims process works may help them understand what to expect.

Clinical negligence is a failure to provide the standard of care to be expected of a doctor with similar training, skills and experience. To succeed, the claimant must establish that the doctor owed them a duty of care; that the doctor breached that duty, and that the patient suffered harm as a result.

Claims should be started within three years of the incident - 70% of claims notified to the MDU are in this group - or three years from when the patient becomes aware there are grounds for a claim. However, this time limit only applies to competent adult patients. For children, the three year limitation period only begins when they have reached 18 while there is no time limit for patients with a mental disorder or disability. Members with claims which are notified well over ten years after the incident have been assisted.

There are a number of different stages to the claims process itself and they differ within the UK. In England and Wales a pre-action protocol was introduced in 1999 to encourage the informal resolution of claims. If both sides fail to agree, the patient can still pursue the claim through the courts.

Details of the claimant’s case and damages claimed, known as particulars of the claim, must be sent with the claim form or served within 14 days. These must give details of the claimant’s allegations and a breakdown of the financial loss that is being claimed. The defence team then has 28 days to lodge a full defence. The case runs on a strict timetable imposed by the court, including exchange of witness statements and reports from impartial experts in the appropriate specialties to advise on the standard of care provided and whether, on the balance of probabilities, this affected the outcome.

Throughout the process, the claims team works with the doctor to achieve the best outcome. For example, we may invite them to meet with the barrister and solicitor to examine the claim in detail, test the available evidence and identify other evidence that may be needed. Our policy is to involve members in decisions about their claims and we will not settle any claim for the sake of expediency alone, although of course, it is not in anyone’s interests to try to defend the indefensible.

Two-thirds of claims notified to us by members do not result in a settlement but where a claimant is successful, compensation is paid for the harm they have suffered and the impact this has had on their life. The object is to restore patients to the position they would have been in had the negligence not occurred and may include general damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity as well as special damages which are designed to meet the cost of care, loss of earnings and special equipment or adaptations in the home.

The cost of the average claim settled by the MDU has increased by about 10% per annum in recent years in terms of the level of compensation awarded and the legal costs have escalated to a greater degree. In fact, in over 40% of medical negligence claims settled by the MDU, claimants’ legal costs now exceed damages. We have repeatedly highlighted the problem of spiralling and disproportionate legal costs but we are optimistic that the recommendations in the Justice Jackson report into civil litigation costs, if implemented in full, will restore balance to the system.

Whether or not a claim is successful, we see at first hand how upsetting it can be for doctors to be accused of clinical negligence. For this reason, it is essential that doctors contact their defence organisation at the first sign of a claim.

Access an explanatory podcast on the issue (MDU members only).