- First Floor
- 213 London Road
- Leicester
- LE2 1ZE
"Medical Negligence Specialists"
0800 9520010
"Medical Negligence Specialists"
0800 9520010
When we visit our GP or receive hospital treatment, we expect to enjoy the highest standards of medical care. Unfortunately, sometimes this simply isn’t the case. When health professionals fail to provide the appropriate care this could lead to a deterioration in your health. It may even leave you requiring surgery or procedures that could have otherwise been avoided.
Moosa – Duke are one of the few firms of solicitors in the UK who specialise solely in medical negligence, and our expert team can help victims of clinical negligence, or their families, to receive the compensation that they are entitled to.
Medical negligence, or clinical negligence, means that care in a medical environment has failed to reach acceptable standards, or has led to an injury requiring further treatment. For example, if you were suffering from a medical complaint and visited your GP but, as a direct result of the care that your GP provided, your condition deteriorated dramatically and it could be shown that the doctor was at fault, you may have grounds for a case of medical negligence.
An example of this would be repeatedly going to your GP with pain in the chest and the GP advising you that it was just indigestion or stress, when in fact you were at risk of having a heart attack.
If a stay in hospital has left you suffering from a long-term condition, such as severe back pain which requires the help of chiropractors, you may be wondering if you can claim for medical negligence. The team at Moosa - Duke will work with you to establish whether you have a claim and whether this claim could be successful, before investigating and developing a case on your behalf. With a team of solicitors who specialise in medical negligence, we can help you to achieve the results you are looking for when the actions of a medical professional have caused you to suffer.
One of our solicitors is a member of the Law Society panel as a Clinical Negligence specialist and has been doing Clinical Negligence for coming up to 20, which is testament to the expertise and experience that you can take advantage of when choosing Moosa – Duke to handle your claim. If you think that you may be eligible to claim for medical negligence, we recommend that you contact our team today.
Disclaimer of Endorsement: Reference herein to any specific commercial products, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favouring by Moosa Duke. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of Moosa Duke, and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes.
An audit into the way the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) operates, with particular reference to its complaints procedure, has highlighted “significant weaknesses”, leading to terms of how the regulator is to be reviewed being released this week.
Although signs of improvement had been recognised by the Commons Health Committee last summer, it stated that there were no justifications for the 41% rise in complaints in the previous twelve months towards nursing staff, which has led to a new review being conducted.
The committee remained very concerned about the “existence of low standards of basic nursing care in our acute hospitals and care homes, which appear to be in breach of the code of conduct for nurses and midwives”.
David Cameron only last month demanded that nurses should be told to make hourly ward rounds, as although on the whole nursing levels were reasonable, there had been several documented cases in which even basic treatment was not being administered. He remained of the view that nurses should be concerned more-so on “patients not paperwork”, which would ultimately lead to more consistency in the level of care provided.
A report written by the Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence (CHRE) supported the view taken by the Health Committee in acknowledging improvements, but maintained that risks to the public still exist; an issue that should hopefully be addressed in the new enquiry.
The controversial changes proposed by the Health and Social Care Bill, which is due to return to the House of Lords next week, have been branded an ‘unholy mess’ by the editors of three leading medical journals.
Described as one of the most radical plans in the history of the health service, the proposed changes will, if passed, completely overhaul the NHS. The way in which care is currently commissioned will be altered through the greater involvement of GPs and the creation of a new Commissioning Board. Competition with the private sector will also be encouraged.
Ministers say the changes are vital to help the NHS cope with the demands of an ageing population, the costs of new drugs and treatments and the impact of lifestyle factors, such as obesity. However, The British Medical Association, the Royal College of Nurses and the Royal College of Midwives have all opposed the proposals, with some critics claiming they are unworkable and amount to “backdoor privatisation”.
In a joint editorial published by the Health Service Journal, the Nursing Times and the British Medical Journal, the changes are described as ‘unnecessary, poorly conceived and badly communicated’.
Dr Fiona Godlee, editor-in-chief of the BMJ, said the journals had decided to make what she said was an unprecedented step of issuing a joint editorial to illustrate the depth of feeling within the health service. She said “we don’t represent anyone, but we do talk to the doctors, nurses and managers who will have to implement these changes and wanted to get across the sense of anger at what has happened.”
Despite the strength of feeling in this editorial, not all health professionals are opposed to the planned changes. A group of 56 GP’s who are helping set up Clinical Commissioning Groups (under the Bill these will effectively replace Primary Care Trusts and be handed their budgets) have written a letter to the Daily Telegraph expressing their support for the Bill. They have described the changes as ‘essential to the future of the NHS’ and have suggested that the system will be ‘in peril’ if the reforms are prevented from going ahead.
Indeed, despite their belief that the changes will create an unstable system, the editors of the Health Service Journal, the Nursing Times and the British Medical Journal have acknowledged that it is unlikely that the Bill can be stopped now. However, they have also predicted that the changes will be so destructive that a further reorganisation of the NHS will be required in five years time. Whether this prediction proves correct remains to be seen.
There has been a rise in payouts in connection with Medical Negligence claims – this rise is often blamed on Claimant Lawyers acting under a no win no fee agreement….but how often are fees increased because the lawyers acting for the NHS refuse to accept liability for years and defend and an indefensible claim?
How often do defendant lawyers refuse to pay out early and therefore drag the claim on for years, increasing legal fees on both sides?
It is always Claimant’s lawyers that get bad press – has anyone ever stopped to look at the conduct of defendant lawyers or the NHSLA who refuse to settle cases early thereby increasing legal fees unnecessarily?
Medical Negligence Claims against NHS bodies went up in the last five years from 6,652 to 8,655.
The NHS Litigation Authority handles medical negligence claims made against NHS bodies inEngland.
Health Minister Lord Howe said: “If patients do not receive the treatment they should and mistakes are made, it is right that they are entitled to compensation and the NHS Litigation Authority plays a vital role in ensuring that claims are settled as swiftly as possible” He went on to say: “Following a review of claims, we have made additional funds available to the NHS Litigation Authority in order to make sure those claimants who are entitled to compensation receive it in a timely way. We want to strike the right balance between access to compensation claims and ensuring that costs are proportionate, sustainable and affordable.”
Lord Wigley said words to the effect of:
‘Many people involved in cases arising from Medical Negligence by a public authority are among the most destitute. These cases will frequently involve parents or other family members bringing cases against public authorities as a result of traumatic injuries sustained by their children or other relatives. Considering the inequality of arms that inevitably arises, having access to expert reports is vital’.
What is perhaps most distressing in cases centering on charges of medical negligence is that individuals will come up against the state, with its teams of lawyers, during proceedings. Never is an inequality of arms more blatant than in those situations.
According to the Department of Health, claims have increased in recent years. An increase in costs is not necessarily due to an increase in claims, rather it is due to a number of factors: cases run under no win no fee agreements; the increasing survival rates of brain-damaged babies owing to advances in medical expertise; the increased cost of caring around the clock for brain damaged babies who survive. Compensation claims for children with brain damage can often be as high as £6m to cover the lifetime costs.
Success in a Medical Negligence claims depend on the skill and expertise of your legal team and your medical experts. It is vital to use lawyers with experience of handling the NHS; lawyers who are not afraid to stand up to the NHS and its legal team.
Concerns have been raised by the British Medical Association about proposals which may be put in place to replace the NHS Litigation Authority (NHSLA) with a private model.
One of the reasons mentioned for making such changes includes reducing the cost of medical litigation. The NHSLA pays out legal fees and compensation for medical negligence cases.
In 2001, £280m was paid out. Last year £1billion was paid out. Why is this? One of the main reasons is that the cost of claims has gone up. The amount of compensation awarded has gone up.
Children who have suffered brain damage as a result of cerebral palsy or because of some other medical mishap can be awarded up to £6m each. Some may be awarded more. This is because the cost of providing a child with brain damage with what he or she needs has gone up drastically. A child with brain damage often needs 24 hour care – this is costly and the costs of providing this care has gone up. A claim for a child with brain damage can take an average of 5 – 6 years to complete. To prove a claim requires hours of work and a plethora of medical experts. The experts who will advise in a claim for a child with brain damage will vary in number and could be as many as 10 experts if not more. These will include for example an obstetrician, a paediatric neurologist, a care expert, an accommodation expert, and a statistician to name but a few. What this in turn means is that the costs of the medical experts as well as the legal costs over this time will be significant.
There are concerns that moving towards a privatised model would bring with it difficulties. In America for example where the private model is utilised, there are some doctors/health care professionals who refuse to carry out high risk jobs as the cost of insuring the operation is too high or insurance companies fail to pay out.
It is suggested that if this model is introduced in the UK, there is the possibility that life saving procedures could disappear from the health care service as the high risks involved in carrying out operations will force doctors to take out unaffordable medical insurance. Instead of privatising medical cover in the UK, suggestions have been made to pay compensation awards in instalments, so that when the patient dies, the compensation is stopped, thus saving costs.
It is thought that although replacing the current model used in the UK may have an impact on a cut in costs at present, there may be long term effects towards the public’s confidence in the government as well as medical professionals. This remains to be seen.
It is however our view as solicitors who represent the public that maybe a model that incorporates the two could be the way forward.
At present NHS doctors are covered entirely by the government if there is a claim for medical negligence. If all doctors had to pay an annual ‘insurance’ contribution to the government’s scheme, then what impact would this have on the economy and on some clinician’s sense of accountability?
Moosa-Duke Solicitors have this week successfully concluded a claim for Clinical Negligence against a hospital in Cambridgeshire for a client who experienced post-operative complications following a laparoscopic cholecystectomy (gallbladder keyhole surgery).
Investigations revealed that the surgeon had used surgical equipment which was known to be faulty, to secure the blood vessels after removing the gallbladder. The surgeon had not only failed to use the correct number of clips to ensure that the vessels remained secure, but also failed to secure one of the blood vessels altogether.
As a result of the substandard care provided by the surgeon, our client sustained major intra-abdominal bleeding resulting in the need for emergency open surgery and extensive abdominal scarring. As a consequence of the postoperative complications that our client experienced, she required treatment on the Intensive Treatment Unit, she developed a pneumothorax, she suffered with acute respiratory distress syndrome and also developed alopecia. Following prolonged treatment in hospital our client was discharged home where she required care and assistance for several weeks and was unable to return to work for six months.
The Cuts - A false economy
The Government is planning to cut Legal Aid for Clinical Negligence cases. A study carried out by Kings College London reveals that the cuts will have knock-on costs and as such are ‘unlikely to make a significant contribution to reducing the fiscal deficit’.
The findings can be read in a report commissioned by the Law Society, Unintended Consequences: the costs of the government’s legal aid reforms, in which Dr Graham Cookson from King’s College London’s Department of Management comments.
It has been suggested that removing legal aid for clinical negligence claims will cost the NHS £28.5m a year – the saving to be made by cutting Legal Aid is estimated to be £10.5m.
It is therefore clear from the report that although the cuts may have some impact in the short term, they are going to cost the NHS, as highlighted above, many times more than the saving hoped for, and thus are far outweigh any benefits they claim to bring, particularly in clinical negligence cases.
Alison Taylor, 29, from Syston, died in March 2010 despite visits to her GP, Mr Hussey and Dr Das Bhari, at the Syston Medical Centre, and The Leicester Royal Infirmary.
A two day inquest into Mrs Taylor’s death was concluded on 15 December 2011.
Recording a narrative verdict, the coroner of Rutland and North Leicestershire said that Mrs Taylor died from a pulmonary embolism after a deep vein thrombosis.
Mrs Taylor died 16 days after giving birth to her third child. After complaining to midwives, she was sent to Leicester Royal Infirmary (LRI) but no ultrasound scan was available at weekends. She was told she had cramps.
The doctor who saw her at the Leicester Royal Infirmary Maternity Unit, admitted that he did not understand the hospital’s own guidelines and now realised that he should have done a blood test even if he had suspected that it was not deep vein thrombosis.
Mrs Taylor also visited her GP on the morning of her death but was told that the pain was most likely cramp.
The Leicester Royal Infirmary has changed its arrangements for scanning and scans are now availbale at weekends, unlike the situation in Mrs Taylor’s case.
Welcome to the new website of Moosa-Duke Solicitors. Please have a look around to find out more about what we do and how we can help you. If you have any questions, don’t hesitate to contact us either by email or call us at 0800 9520010.
Welcome to Moosa-Duke Solicitors latest news. This is where you can find updates about our services and other information. This section will be updated regularly, so please check back again soon.