How is this possibly right?

[pork911]

spaximus said:

pork911 said:

they aren't so what are you saying?

If due to negligance, and People still haven't grasped the differance between a procedure going wrong due to things like infection or such and negligance. In this case it was deemed serious so the care of the child was assesed and an amount of money dished out. If the woman needed to have a home with a seperate room for the child and then paid out for carers to come in every day , then the cost should be met on a monthly basis, not just hand over £750k as an interim.
That way it is based on need.

Now take the example of a person who has an operation and then a day or so later they find a surgical instrument has been left inside. They go back in have it removed and they recover two or three days later than normal. It is negligance for sure but does that person deserve money? I would say not, but then again I haven't claimed for accidents etc I could have.

It is a very emotive subject that wil go on and on, with people entrenched on opposing sides.

the award was based on need and accelerated receipt was taken into account

as I've indicated I disagree with how the money was spent

my comment was about hurt feelings not being claimable, as you seem to think

[pork911]

Benjurs said:

King Herald said:

RYH64E said:

I fundamentally disagree with the principle of suing somebody who is doing their best to help, it's biting the hand that feeds.

Doing their best to help, or doing the minimum they can get away with to keep their job?

I'd love to share your image of heard working nurses, doctors, surgeons etc, all working long hard shifts, stressed, doing their absolute utmost to keep that smile shining while they do a difficult and skilled job, but I have been in hospitals, my wife has worked in hospitals, where a certain disgusting percentage of the staff don't really give a toss!!!!!!!!

Mistakes can be accepted, we all make them, but fk-ups caused by bad attitude, laziness and ignorance are NOT acceptable.

Whilst I agree with you about fk ups not being acceptable, I work in the NHS and yes there are some lazy bds but I'd say the majority of the people working there are there for best reasons.....

best reasons? getting paid for the work they do ( while not lauding uncritically the good works of the institution and confusing that with their own worth)?

[mph1977]

scenario8 said:

Justayellowbadge said:

What surprises me is that the compensation can be conditional in this way.

I've not heard of such a thing previously.

Although handled by trustees, I'd have expected any award to be absolute.

On the emboldened part, and directed to the room and not you specifically, why should the totality of an award be an absolute payment? If an award is granted to cater for ongoing care if that care is unexpectedly no longer required I honestly don't see why that part of an award shouldn't be reclaimed. So strike me down.

While I can understand why many would see this action as heartless I don't have an issue with the concept of reclaiming unrequired ongoing care payments.

given that many compensation payments include an element of a)'ongoing care' or b)'future loss of earnings' why should this be gifted when someone dies a) before the the age at which the next tranche of money is due a+b if they die due to an unrelated casue

[mph1977]

HD Adam said:

spaximus said:

The money was for care, not compensation, to provide a big house and as the care is no longer needed it is right it should be reclaimed, in my opinion.

I have to say that I agree with this.

For the people saying that the payment should not be reclaimed and just to draw a parallel, my father died last year.
He was in receipt of a State pension and had a Motability car as he was disabled.
My Mother does not get his pension and the car that she had full use of has been withdrawn as she is not disabled.

Should she get those even though they are no longer "needed" yet desirable?

exactly ...

[mph1977]

condor said:

I'd suggest it was likely that she took the long term view of it being a family home and be large enough to cater for further children and a husband/partner.

I think she should repay the money, but she shouldn't have been given such a large (child care till 10 years old) sum in the first place.

in large compensation cases the initial / interim payment is often the largest payment, though the staging of ongoing care payments is now going to be open to yet more review ...

[mph1977]

MarshPhantom said:

Justayellowbadge said:

Pothole said:

Justayellowbadge said:

What surprises me is that the compensation can be conditional in this way.

I've not heard of such a thing previously.

Although handled by trustees, I'd have expected any award to be absolute.

I'm going to sound callous now, but I'm trying to be dispassionate and objective.

Why would you think that? The money was paid for her to look after the child, the child is now past looking after so she no longer 'needs' the money for that purpose. Perhaps another mother does.

I can't argue with the logic.

It is the practicalities - as I mentioned earlier, it would in that circumstance make more sense, at least to me, for the payments to be periodic.

Making the award and taking a portion back on the death of the grantee seems I'll advised.

The payment may officially have been made to help with the child's care, but really it's compensation for a big mistake made by the NHS.

do you actually understand what Compensation is ?

do you understand the concept of Indemnity ?

this is not the USA where large Punitive / Exemplary Damage awards are routine.

[mph1977]

RYH64E said:

King Herald said:

BlackVanDyke said:

..... these aren't accidents we're talking about but medical negligence.

That is exactly my point earlier, when someone suggested people sign a waiver to avail of the NHS facilities, the NHS they have probably paid into all their working life.

If you remove responsibility and accountability the NHS would end up like some third world country, where newly graduated doctors and surgeons would gply their trade for a year or two to practise on poor people, with no fear of the consequences.

I fundamentally disagree with the principle of suing somebody who is doing their best to help, it's biting the hand that feeds.

perhaps the balance on what is negligent needs to be addressed - plus while not related to high value med negligence claims, the way in which NWNF has lead to an entitlement culture related to compensation ...

[mph1977]

Kermit power said:

RYH64E said:

I don't think the NHS should be liable for compensation under any circumstances. They provide a free service (paid for by those of us who actually pay tax), and mistakes sometimes happen. Mistakes made in hospitals tend to have serious consequences, but st happens. They're trying to help, ofTen under difficult circumstances, and sometimes make mistakes. The alternative is to not even try to help for fear of prosecution.

You do realise they're insured, don't you? Just like a mechanic or a builder or anyone else who might do work on your behalf that ends up resulting in serious injury or death as a result of their negligence?

If medical staff are negligent, the compensation doesn't actually get docked from their next pay packet! Sure, they might lose their job, but frankly if someone has caused death or serious injury through negligence or incompetence, I don't actually want them doing the job!!!

which is why people are suspended or struck off the relevant Professional registers for the most trivial things - have a look at some of the HCPC FtP reports, the NMC strikes a balalnce most of the time and the GMC was notoriously lenient - which is why they now have an ALMO of sorts for their actual FtPs ...

[mph1977]

Kermit power said:

RYH64E said:

If anyone doesn't think that there is a problem with medical negligence claims just google 'medical negligence solicitor', there are thousands of them out there sucking money out of the NHS. Medical negligence claims are to the NHS what whiplash claims are to the car insurance industry.

So you make sure only truly valid claims are met. Denying access to people with a genuine need out of a fear you might pay out an unfounded claim is seriously screwed up.

part ofthe issue is that lay managers decide which claims will be defended ( a tiny number of totally spurious claims , and the high value cases - hoping to mitigate the payout they will be making) while many dubious cases as well as lesser value genuine cases are just 'bunged some compo' in an out of court offer wrapped in a gagging clause

[Benjurs]

pork911 said:

Benjurs said:

King Herald said:

RYH64E said:

I fundamentally disagree with the principle of suing somebody who is doing their best to help, it's biting the hand that feeds.

Doing their best to help, or doing the minimum they can get away with to keep their job?

I'd love to share your image of heard working nurses, doctors, surgeons etc, all working long hard shifts, stressed, doing their absolute utmost to keep that smile shining while they do a difficult and skilled job, but I have been in hospitals, my wife has worked in hospitals, where a certain disgusting percentage of the staff don't really give a toss!!!!!!!!

Mistakes can be accepted, we all make them, but fk-ups caused by bad attitude, laziness and ignorance are NOT acceptable.

Whilst I agree with you about fk ups not being acceptable, I work in the NHS and yes there are some lazy bds but I'd say the majority of the people working there are there for best reasons.....

best reasons? getting paid for the work they do ( while not lauding uncritically the good works of the institution and confusing that with their own worth)?

Yes best reasons, I don't think that you can put a price on what is, generally, an altruistic career...the people that I trained with were all top notch and people who I would want looking after me if I got sick....The ones that weren't soon got shipped out..

[pork911]

Benjurs said:

pork911 said:

Benjurs said:

King Herald said:

RYH64E said:

I fundamentally disagree with the principle of suing somebody who is doing their best to help, it's biting the hand that feeds.

Doing their best to help, or doing the minimum they can get away with to keep their job?

I'd love to share your image of heard working nurses, doctors, surgeons etc, all working long hard shifts, stressed, doing their absolute utmost to keep that smile shining while they do a difficult and skilled job, but I have been in hospitals, my wife has worked in hospitals, where a certain disgusting percentage of the staff don't really give a toss!!!!!!!!

Mistakes can be accepted, we all make them, but fk-ups caused by bad attitude, laziness and ignorance are NOT acceptable.

Whilst I agree with you about fk ups not being acceptable, I work in the NHS and yes there are some lazy bds but I'd say the majority of the people working there are there for best reasons.....

best reasons? getting paid for the work they do ( while not lauding uncritically the good works of the institution and confusing that with their own worth)?

Yes best reasons, I don't think that you can put a price on what is, generally, an altruistic career...the people that I trained with were all top notch and people who I would want looking after me if I got sick....The ones that weren't soon got shipped out..

'altruistic career' classic

many staff are very good and vocal at putting a priceless value on what they do

[10 Pence Short]

Lots of people on here wrongly assuming Clin Neg claims are analogous to RTA PI.

Very different beasts indeed and not 'ambulance chasing' work at all.

[mph1977]

10 Pence Short said:

Lots of people on here wrongly assuming Clin Neg claims are analogous to RTA PI.

Very different beasts indeed and not 'ambulance chasing' work at all.

high value clin neg is different, the low value stuff is the same NWNF muppets especially those offering a few thousand for what are known sequalae which are occasionally missed when doing a consent ... retained instruments is different kettle of fish ...

[10 Pence Short]

CFAs and NWNF have their place, not to mention removal of public funding for the vast majority of claims.

The NHS does not simply roll over on claims in the same way as insurers do through the portal, which has long been a gravy train.

Now RTA portal fees are halved and referrals being clamped down, you're going to see a LOT more Clin Neg claims coming through, as law firms alter their focus and investment.