Elizabeth Love assesses the numbers behind the consultation on fixed costs, and finds them wanting
The Department of Health’s (DH) proposals on fixed costs for clinical negligence claims rely on fundamentally flawed figures and methodologies.
The figures
In its consultation on Introducing Fixed Recoverable Costs in Lower Value Clinical Negligence Claims, which ran from 30 January to 2 May 2017, the DH stated that it was ‘consulting on the methodologies only—not the absolute figures’.
Notwithstanding this statement, however, the DH goes on to directly contradict itself in the impact assessment, which asserts: ‘The level of recoverable costs and method of implementation are included within the consultation [emphasis added].’
This raises a large question mark over what exactly is being intended by the DH in relation to the figures and whether those figures provided in the consultation will, in fact, be the final fixed costs figures.
Methodologies/value
While no criticism is made of Professor Fenn, the figures in the consultation are fundamentally
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=e3c4b2f1_1)
