Proud to be a lawyer ???

[anonymous-user]

Excuse the daily wail link
MailOnline: No win no fee law firm claims £58,000 legal costs from the NHS after winning £2,500 compensation for patient was burnt by a hot drink
http://dailym.ai/PBYPpu

Maybe this should be in the public/private sector thread for 51turbo

I am sick to foooking death of CENTURY FM 'S advertising, "stubbed your toe" call us to sue, "had an accident at work" sue your boss "they don't pay the insurance does" until they can't afford the premium next year and your out of a job feck wits,

The allowing of parasite law firms and fee introducers or whatever they are called to advertise must be amongst the biggest fook ups ever,

Anyway I suppose if I want 2k or an ipad etc up front I best stop fooking about on here and ring "injury lawyers 4 u"

The lawyers will be on shortly to defend this and legal aid

[bingybongy]

Perhaps the careless fkers who made the cup of tea with boiling water will be more careful next time.

[wc98]

bingybongy said:

Perhaps the careless fkers who made the cup of tea with boiling water will be more careful next time.

it would,nt be much of a cup of tea if it was,nt made with boiling water ?

[bingybongy]

wc98 said:

it would,nt be much of a cup of tea if it was,nt made with boiling water ?

No. But it wouldn't have scalded anyone.

[Funkycoldribena]

Maybe they should serve it cold from now on so people realise whats going on.

[Derek Smith]

You can't judge a profession or job by individuals.

You can criticise systems that allow injustices and any reluctance to change them (although that is not always the fault of those who do the job).

If you do your job well and provide a service to the best of your ability then you should feel proud.

[10 Pence Short]

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.

[Snowboy]

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.

[julian64]

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.

This is true, and unfortunately the reason why, when I started in medicine 20 years odd ago, it cost me £180 a year for medical insurance. Now it costs £8000 per year.

The majority of this seems to be due to the idea that companies will sue the NHS for amounts they know are easier to pay than defend, based on the cost of legal time.

When I started medicine the insurance was there to protect the reputation of the doctor, it said as much in the paperwork, and the doctor was given the last say as to whether compensation was paid out or defended within reason.

Nowadays the doctor in question is given no say in whether the claim is defended and its done on a purely financial basis.

The problem with deciding a case on a purely financial basis is defined by the ops post, where the legal costs are far bigger than the claim. That makes the decision to proceed little to do with the claimant and all to do with the law firm. A self fulfilling prophecy of greed, and nothing to do with justice. Something the government should legislate against.

[carinaman]

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.

I saw a piece by a solicitor on deaths in custody that read like an excuse to flag up their new medical negligence practice. Unless that solicitor was involved in one of the deaths involving that police force that smacks of blatant opportunism and an excuse to get their brand out there that bears comparison with the 'Speed Kills' lobby cynically exploiting every death on our roads to get their message out there.

I was discussing some major surgery I had when I was a child at work with some younger new starters, you know how it is, you can't fix those holes in the floorpan without breaking a few plastic clips getting in and out to get access to the hole and weld it up without setting fire to the soft furnishings. When I mentioned the side effects, baggage from that surgery, one of them said 'You could sue for that'.

Edited by carinaman on Monday 7th April 08:59

[rigga]

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 ....

[Bluebarge]

Snowboy said:

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.

Then where's the justice if an incompetent surgeon paralyses the family breadwinner? Does the fact that he received the injury for free make it ok? After all, not many people who commit GBH or worse actually charge for it.

If the NHS had a decent system of quality control over its practitioners, and regularly monitored its mistakes in the same way pilots are required to do, then you might have a point, but what we have is a system of very variable quality which is not free (we all pay for it through taxation) and which commits far too many basic errors. Denying people the right to redress in those circumstances would be a scandalous injustice.

What might be sensible would be to move to the Swedish system, where the hospital and claimant work together to achieve a solution which adequately compensates the claimant, rather than our adversarial system where the hospital denies all liability and drags out proceedings in the hope that the claimant will give up or die before the hearing - that's what racks up legal costs. In other words, a form of mediation would be better than our own Punch and Judy legal system.

[Hackney]

Funkycoldribena said:

Maybe they should serve it cold from now on so people realise whats going on.

And not put any tea in it, as that's a choking risk surely?

[10 Pence Short]

Before jumping to conclusions over the need to overhaul our entire civil justice system or shield the NHS from negligence claims, perhaps some should read the article in more detail.

The costs claimed by Rapid were challenged by the NHS and much, much lower ones imposed by the courts. In the hot drink case, for example, the costs were slashed by the court from £58,000 to £5000.

To me this tends to suggest the NHS is no shrinking violet, unable to defend itself, the courts are doing their job by scrutinising costs and the story is being presented in a somewhat one dimensional way by the Daily Mail.

[julian64]

Bluebarge said:

If the NHS had a decent system of quality control over its practitioners, and regularly monitored its mistakes in the same way pilots are required to do, then you might have a point, but what we have is a system of very variable quality which is not free (we all pay for it through taxation) and which commits far too many basic errors. Denying people the right to redress in those circumstances would be a scandalous injustice.

Idiot.

Sorry just couldn't muster further comment.

[carinaman]

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 ....

Obviously as one lugging around character building quirks as result of surgery I can see where you're coming from, but sadly some institutions can lie and cover up like people playing insulting handbags on Internet forums like PH. Witness Jo Hindley just 'flagging up' Maria Miller being involved in the Leveson Inquiry and meeting with Editors.

The default reaction of some organisations when they've been caught out is to cover up and lie. Chief Constables sending MPs wooly letters about what they believe happened is one thing, but in the NHS people's lives are at risk.

'Nevermind patients keep dying, we musn't say anything for the reputation of the doctor and the NHS'?

It's the centennary of WW1. British troops are withdrawing from Afghanistan after 448 British deaths. Where does commerating that sit with 'Nevermind your mother/father/son/wife/child died due to medical neglect or incompetence, just grin and bear it for the sake of the NHS brand'?

I don't know. Anyone that makes a valid criticism of the police is deemed an anti-police troll and anyone raising concerns about the NHS is a heretic. There has to be some middleground. Some ground that has room for the truth and honesty.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-2595993...

Meh. A Nurse that worked her way up using an honourary title to call herself 'Doctor' within the NHS? It's like JustinP1's landlord problems and Breadvan72's thoughts on the sort of people that buy themselves Lords and Lady of the Manor titles. I'm not sure that fits with reports of 'Do you know who I am' tactics reportedly used by Maria Miller Secretary of State for the Cultural Sport of Bullying and Media cover up?

There need to be some controls to bring people and their organisations to account. The IPCC and CQC could aspire to be Chocolate Teapots.

Edited by carinaman on Monday 7th April 09:46

[Snowboy]

Bluebarge said:

Snowboy said:

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.

Then where's the justice if an incompetent surgeon paralyses the family breadwinner? Does the fact that he received the injury for free make it ok? After all, not many people who commit GBH or worse actually charge for it.

If the NHS had a decent system of quality control over its practitioners, and regularly monitored its mistakes in the same way pilots are required to do, then you might have a point, but what we have is a system of very variable quality which is not free (we all pay for it through taxation) and which commits far too many basic errors. Denying people the right to redress in those circumstances would be a scandalous injustice.

What might be sensible would be to move to the Swedish system, where the hospital and claimant work together to achieve a solution which adequately compensates the claimant, rather than our adversarial system where the hospital denies all liability and drags out proceedings in the hope that the claimant will give up or die before the hearing - that's what racks up legal costs. In other words, a form of mediation would be better than our own Punch and Judy legal system.

You have a point.

But, in the US the large payouts are normally to cover future medical costs arising from the mistake.
In the UK all future costs are covered by the NHS anyway.

I'd be happy with someone getting some compensation to help them out. It's the huge legal costs that seem a waste.

[10 Pence Short]

Snowboy said:

You have a point.

But, in the US the large payouts are normally to cover future medical costs arising from the mistake.
In the UK all future costs are covered by the NHS anyway.

I'd be happy with someone getting some compensation to help them out. It's the huge legal costs that seem a waste.

You might not have a proper handle on the make up of costs from claims.

In cases where the negligence has ongoing implications, damages will be assessed to incorporate these.

For example, a baby delivered negligently and requiring a lifetime of care will have damages made up to incorporate the physical injury itself, the lifetime of care required, any specialist equipment and accommodation and the removal of earnings ability (plus other consequential costs). These kind of cases run into many millions of pounds worth of damages.

Ironically, if a baby were to die due to negligence during delivery, the damages would be minute by comparison.


With regards costs, both the claimant solicitors and the NHS have responsibility for these. The NHS has a habit of clinging on until the last possible moment before admitting liability, which has both a large financial impact on the costs incurred by the sides and, more importantly, a detrimental one on the damaged patient as they wait often years for an admission of liability.

I would have thought a sensible way to reduce costs of claims would be;

1) Make less mistakes when treating patients
2) Be more capable of admitting mistakes (many victims simply want an admission of guilt and an apology, not cash)
3) Learn from mistakes
4) Use mediation and/or binding arbitration in a structured way

[Rovinghawk]

Hackney said:

And not put any tea in it, as that's a choking risk surely?

Loose tea, not teabags. Obvious!

[carinaman]

Less Tea, fewer teabags?

Loose Tea, Loose Change, Loose Cannons...