Proud to be a lawyer ???
Discussion
PurpleMoonlight said:
It would be very easy for the Government to stop this.
Simply legislate that claimable costs are limited to a percentage of the compensation.
With the effect that complex but low value claims cannot be made because no lawyer is going to take them on? Or that they wouldn't be made in the first place if the award is going to be dwarfed by the (irrecoverable) costs.Simply legislate that claimable costs are limited to a percentage of the compensation.
Not sure that that is progress - the costs of a dispute are not always relative to the amount in dispute. And if you have a genuine grievance, should you be unable to retain the sum that you are awarded (at least a good chunk of it - it is rare to also get 100% of your costs).
The new costs budgeting scheme may have some positive effect on this issue - at least then the parties have an idea of where they may stand on costs and it might incentivise both sides to think long and hard about settlement options before massive costs are incurred.
Snowboy said:
10 Pence Short said:
Expect many more of these stories over the next 5 years, as many law firms have migrated from low value RTA claims and tooled up for medical negligence instead.
That's one if the reasons why medical care in the US is so expensive.The insurance premiums to protect against lawsuits.
Personally, I'd like the NHS to be legally protected from lawsuits.
To be given 'free' medical care for life and then to sue if something goes wrong is just wrong.
There should be some mechanism of control and oversight, but allowing private law firms to sue the NHS is just wrong.
obscene that pigs should trough at a national, free at delivery, health service.
If a patient suffers, they should be fixed medically but there should be no monetary compensation and certainly no leaches involved.
If someone wants the right to sue, then go private.
rigga said:
Snowboy said:
That's one if the reasons why medical care in the US is so expensive.
The insurance premiums to protect against lawsuits.
Personally, I'd like the NHS to be legally protected from lawsuits.
To be given 'free' medical care for life and then to sue if something goes wrong is just wrong.
There should be some mechanism of control and oversight, but allowing private law firms to sue the NHS is just wrong.
Very much this ....The insurance premiums to protect against lawsuits.
Personally, I'd like the NHS to be legally protected from lawsuits.
To be given 'free' medical care for life and then to sue if something goes wrong is just wrong.
There should be some mechanism of control and oversight, but allowing private law firms to sue the NHS is just wrong.
My father was killed through medical negligence and I can assure you the desire you feel to get justice for your loved one is overwhelming.
Also, it isnt free for most people, taxpayers pay for it.
Edited by POORCARDEALER on Monday 7th April 19:16
You can sue for breach of contract if you are a private patient. I'm not convinced that the public sector should be exempt from the law of negligence simply because they don't make a profit.
The removal of legal aid for clinical neg. cases is supposed to save money. It will of course cost more money which may lead to costs being capped and claimants being unable to engage proper legal representation.
The removal of legal aid for clinical neg. cases is supposed to save money. It will of course cost more money which may lead to costs being capped and claimants being unable to engage proper legal representation.
NicD said:
YES!!!!!!!
obscene that pigs should trough at a national, free at delivery, health service.
If a patient suffers, they should be fixed medically but there should be no monetary compensation and certainly no leaches involved.
If someone wants the right to sue, then go private.
It's not free you lunatic. It doesn't matter that you don't hand over any money when you receive care, YOU still pay for it. I dare you to apply the same principle to your car, your weekly shopping or a holiday. Bet you can't. And why would going private give you anymore rights? Explain it, please.obscene that pigs should trough at a national, free at delivery, health service.
If a patient suffers, they should be fixed medically but there should be no monetary compensation and certainly no leaches involved.
If someone wants the right to sue, then go private.
will_ said:
With the effect that complex but low value claims cannot be made because no lawyer is going to take them on? Or that they wouldn't be made in the first place if the award is going to be dwarfed by the (irrecoverable) costs.
Not sure that that is progress - the costs of a dispute are not always relative to the amount in dispute. And if you have a genuine grievance, should you be unable to retain the sum that you are awarded (at least a good chunk of it - it is rare to also get 100% of your costs).
The new costs budgeting scheme may have some positive effect on this issue - at least then the parties have an idea of where they may stand on costs and it might incentivise both sides to think long and hard about settlement options before massive costs are incurred.
These are civil compensation claims. There is no right to legal representation. Not sure that that is progress - the costs of a dispute are not always relative to the amount in dispute. And if you have a genuine grievance, should you be unable to retain the sum that you are awarded (at least a good chunk of it - it is rare to also get 100% of your costs).
The new costs budgeting scheme may have some positive effect on this issue - at least then the parties have an idea of where they may stand on costs and it might incentivise both sides to think long and hard about settlement options before massive costs are incurred.
If the compensation is minimal then there is even more need to limit the reclaimable costs to discourage people from making speculative claims. It is no secret that many insurers will cough up fairly quickly in some instances to save costs, and there would appear to be some lawyers that are milking it for all its worth.
At the end of the day, it is the consumer/tax payer that pays for it one way or another.
Edited by PurpleMoonlight on Monday 7th April 19:41
Osinjak said:
It's not free you lunatic. It doesn't matter that you don't hand over any money when you receive care, YOU still pay for it. I dare you to apply the same principle to your car, your weekly shopping or a holiday. Bet you can't. And why would going private give you anymore rights? Explain it, please.
are you for real?you clearly have learning difficulties, certainly problems with reading, normally a knee jerk response would show vested interest, perhaps a lawyer, but you don't show sufficient language skill for this. Perhaps you know someone in the field.
calling a poster a lunatic is way out there.
Of course some of us pay for the NHS via taxation. There is no justification to tie up scarce resources in defending and paying out compensation to a few, especially when many of the cases are simple put up jobs.
going private would be more comparable to the examples you mention.
My OH spent a short time in clinical negligence work (claimant). One story that upset her, was a baby with leukaemia. The staff somehow thought it appropriate, following treatment that severely suppressed its immune system, to allow the poor little mite to share a room with other, infectious children. Sadly, the baby died.
For those advocating barring of civil claims against the NHS, what routes of redress do they suggest for such circumstances?
For those advocating barring of civil claims against the NHS, what routes of redress do they suggest for such circumstances?
10 Pence Short said:
My OH spent a short time in clinical negligence work (claimant). One story that upset her, was a baby with leukaemia. The staff somehow thought it appropriate, following treatment that severely suppressed its immune system, to allow the poor little mite to share a room with other, infectious children. Sadly, the baby died.
For those advocating barring of civil claims against the NHS, what routes of redress do they suggest for such circumstances?
It is for exactly these type of situation where there simply must be the right of redress.For those advocating barring of civil claims against the NHS, what routes of redress do they suggest for such circumstances?
The pure theoretical economist in me would say that as a system, the NHS is doomed to if not failure, running at a huge inefficiency.
If you are in the private sector and people can get a better 'deal' elsewhere, people will. As a result, the management of the organisation must put in place systems an staff which aims to be the best.
If an organisation doesn't do this, then it goes bust. It's natural selection, which continually increases standards throughout the market.
The difficulty with the NHS is that there is not that driver. The only thing economically driving a health authority to improve standards is the cost of claims against them, and the risk that staff may (rarely) lose their jobs. If you take away the right to redress, or that negligent staff are not pulled up, then standards do not raise, they fall.
NicD said:
are you for real?
you clearly have learning difficulties, certainly problems with reading, normally a knee jerk response would show vested interest, perhaps a lawyer, but you don't show sufficient language skill for this. Perhaps you know someone in the field.
calling a poster a lunatic is way out there.
Of course some of us pay for the NHS via taxation. There is no justification to tie up scarce resources in defending and paying out compensation to a few, especially when many of the cases are simple put up jobs.
going private would be more comparable to the examples you mention.
Am I for real? A bizarre question. I clearly have learning difficulties? No language skills? Anything else you want to throw at me? The irony of your playground comments is clearly lost on you.you clearly have learning difficulties, certainly problems with reading, normally a knee jerk response would show vested interest, perhaps a lawyer, but you don't show sufficient language skill for this. Perhaps you know someone in the field.
calling a poster a lunatic is way out there.
Of course some of us pay for the NHS via taxation. There is no justification to tie up scarce resources in defending and paying out compensation to a few, especially when many of the cases are simple put up jobs.
going private would be more comparable to the examples you mention.
Anyway.
All of us, not some, pay for the NHS through taxation, even those on benefits, it's an inescapable truth.
I agree and disagree with you up to a point. We can use a few examples to illustrate this and the hot tea is a good one. For the record and just so you know before you go off on one, I happen to think that suing the NHS for a hot cup of tea is complete b
ks but there is a variable in this, the person drinking the tea. There is no one single human template that would fit some of the reasoning in this thread. There are the elderly, the infirm, the young, the not so bright, the blind, the deaf, the Reynaud's sufferer, the person serving the tea, the list goes on but there is also the chancer, the terminal litigator, the whiplash claimant, all shapes and sizes. Are we really suggesting that we ban all small claims at the expense of a vulnerable group against the group who do it out of the chance of making a few quid? That's just not going to stick. Let's take another extreme and slightly crude example and say that a surgeon takes off the wrong leg, what then? According to some of the bizarre reasoning, one should just walk (or hop) out of the hospital with a 'Oh well, these things happen' attitude because it's the NHS.As in all walks of life, there are some incompetent people out there but the stakes are much higher in healthcare because your quality of life may suffer. It's fine to sit behind the comfort of a keyboard, tap away and say that the NHS is a hallowed, sacrosanct institution and it shouldn't be touched but the simple truth is that life happens and because of someone's error, intentional or otherwise, some people sadly suffer life-changing events at the hands of healthcare professionals. However, research has actually shown that more often than not it's not necessarily the people who mess up (although that of course does happen) but the organisational procedures that are in place that lead to a significant event occurring. Nobody goes to work thinking that I must avoid making a drug error or I must make sure I don't take the wrong leg off, rather they go to work hoping to do the best they can in the field that they are an expert in. But for all those that want to do good, there are your Mid Staffs, your Shipmans and your Bristol cardiac surgeons. These people (less Shipman to an extent as he acted completely independently and there was never a chance he was going to self-regulate) should have known better. They were professionals and had the ability to recognise that what was going was not right and yet they persisted, beyond clinical negligence I would argue. Appalling behaviour that should be rightly addressed.
The cup of tea is the thin end of the wedge but the principle is the same. If somebody's been negligent and caused someone some harm, a proportional response would seem appropriate. Whether you think the sums involved are appropriate is up for discussion but more often than not, in cases such as these, the first thing the claimant usually says is, 'I only wanted an apology.'
Edited by Osinjak on Monday 7th April 20:57
NicD said:
Discipline by professional body.
I don't see how chancer law firms making huge claims against the NHS's insurer prevents these tragedies.
Let's say you have an operation which goes badly wrong due to medical negligence - you are left disabled. You are in need of constant care and you stand to lose everything - your job, your home, everything ...I don't see how chancer law firms making huge claims against the NHS's insurer prevents these tragedies.
An extreme example perhaps, but it happens.
Are you suggesting there should no right to legal redress and compensation for a medical professional's negligence ?
If you are, can I have some of whatever it is you are on ? It must be good stuff.
The essence of the Daily Mail mentality, as exemplified by the opening post, and some other posts on this thread, appears to be to take one story and from that story conclude that an entire system is fundamentally broken. The subject can be police, prisons, hospitals, schools, courts, you name it. The why oh why ists read these stories, and confidently assert that all of these systems are run entirely by the corrupt and/or the incompetent. You can point out to them as much as you like that the story shows things going wrong, or indeed that the story has been misreported, and that reality is nuanced and complicated and not cartoonish and simple, but you will be wasting your effort. The why oh why ists want to believe that everything is broken. It seems to comfort them in some way.
They seem also to think that complex societal problems have incredibly simple solutions that can be arrived at by a couple of sensible good chaps in the pub that no one has ever thought of before. It must perhaps be pleasant to think that the World is so simple, but also rather gloomy to think that everyone (except you and your like minded pub chums) is wicked, venal, reckless, lazy and incompetent.
They seem also to think that complex societal problems have incredibly simple solutions that can be arrived at by a couple of sensible good chaps in the pub that no one has ever thought of before. It must perhaps be pleasant to think that the World is so simple, but also rather gloomy to think that everyone (except you and your like minded pub chums) is wicked, venal, reckless, lazy and incompetent.
NicD said:
Discipline by professional body.
I don't see how chancer law firms making huge claims against the NHS's insurer prevents these tragedies.
Docs amputate your wrong leg/arm. Then subsequently remove the correct one. You no longer have arms/legs and your whole life has changed. Do you think you should just "get on with it" and all the losses you will now suffer as a result?I don't see how chancer law firms making huge claims against the NHS's insurer prevents these tragedies.
Your mother goes into hospital for a routine Op. The Doctors make several mistakes, she dies on the table. You are happy to just say "oh well never mind"?
I doubt I would think of suing, but until that situation, cannot be sure.
This thread started because of outraged reports of an amoral law firm billing multiple of the fair cost for minor medical problems.
All the defenders of the status quo with the trumped up 'what ifs' make me chuckle.
The huge waste of resource does not.
Still, this is just an online forum, not real life.
This thread started because of outraged reports of an amoral law firm billing multiple of the fair cost for minor medical problems.
All the defenders of the status quo with the trumped up 'what ifs' make me chuckle.
The huge waste of resource does not.
Still, this is just an online forum, not real life.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff