header-logo header-logo

04 May 2017
Issue: 7744 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Fixed costs for clinical negligence?

Lawyers attack government proposals but survey shows overwhelming public support

Government proposals for fixed costs in clinical negligence claims worth up to £25,000 would make only the most straightforward cases commercially viable, leaving many vulnerable patients without a legal remedy, lawyers say.

About 34% of the £1.5bn paid out by the NHS in clinical negligence costs in 2015/16 went on legal costs. The Department of Health (DoH) proposals are contained in its consultation, Fixed recoverable costs for clinical negligence claims, which closed on 2 May.

In its official response to the consultation, law firm Hodge Jones & Allen said the proposals were ‘based on inaccurate cost estimates, fanciful time analysis and flawed logic, including the false premise that lower value claims are by nature less complex, the view that sufficient expert evidence in such cases can be obtained for under £1,200 and that particulars of claim in complex cases can be drafted by junior fee earners’.

Association of Personal Injury Lawyers president Neil Sugarman said: ‘Taking an axe to how much the Department of Health pays does nothing to tackle the factors which drive costs, such as the ludicrously long waiting times for the recovery of medical records, or arduous expert reports.’

However, a survey commissioned by the Medical Protection Society (MPS) found that three-quarters of the public want the government to reduce the amount of money lawyers can claim from the NHS in legal costs, and 81% supported ‘fixed costs’.

The MPS has called on the government to go further to preserve NHS funds, and to impose fixed costs on cases valued at up to £250,000.

Emma Hallinan, director of claims at the MPS, said: ‘In lower value claims it is not unusual to see lawyers’ costs exceed the compensation awarded to claimants.

‘In a recent case involving a delayed diagnosis of a pituitary tumour which settled at £3,250, legal costs of £72,320 were sought. That was reduced to £24,600 after a provisional assessment last summer, which found that the bill was disproportionate.’

Any official response to the consultation will be decided by the new government formed after the 8 June election.

Issue: 7744 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll