header-logo header-logo

27 April 2020
Issue: 7884 / Categories: Legal News , Covid-19 , Profession
printer mail-detail

COVID-19: single payout for bereaved families

The Health Secretary’s death in service benefit for families of healthcare workers may not go far enough, the British Medical Association (BMA) has warned

Matt Hancock announced this week that a single sum of £60,000 will be paid to the dependants of health and social care workers who die from COVID-19 in the course of essential frontline work. The time-limited scheme is for the duration of the pandemic, starting on 25 March, but claims for deaths before this will be considered.

The BMA, Royal College of Nursing (RCN) and other health unions have lobbied the government to provide full death in service benefits to all NHS staff regardless of whether they are a member of the NHS pension scheme.

However, the BMA said that, while the sum may provide immediate financial relief, it could leave families bereft of longer-term financial security, particularly if their loved one was not a current member of the NHS pension scheme or had only recently joined the scheme.

Dr Vishal Sharma, BMA pensions committee chair, said: ‘Whilst this single payment may seem a sizeable sum, it comes nowhere near compensating families for the lifetime income their loved one may have earned if they hadn’t died prematurely, fighting this crisis on the frontline.

‘This is particularly true for young or recently qualified staff. The BMA will be examining closely the detail of the government’s life assurance scheme.’

Dame Donna Kinnair, General Secretary of the Royal College of Nursing, said: ‘We will examine the detail closely.

‘It must be easily accessed, open to those in social care and primary care too and be paid promptly―no family should face a lengthy or complex process.’

Meanwhile, Bindmans partner Jamie Potter is acting for two doctors in a judicial review to challenge the government’s PPE guidance and sourcing. Pre-action correspondence was sent last week.

Potter said: ‘There needs to be a public inquiry in due course, but what those workers deserve right now is transparency as to the risks they are facing with different levels of PPE and confirmation they are entitled to refuse to work where they consider the risks too great.’

Issue: 7884 / Categories: Legal News , Covid-19 , Profession
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Katten Muchin Rosenman—Charlotte Hill

Katten Muchin Rosenman—Charlotte Hill

Katten strengthens financial markets and funds group in London

Hugh James—Keith Cundall & Lee Hart

Hugh James—Keith Cundall & Lee Hart

Hugh James expands national Serious Injury team with two new Partners

HFW—Rémi Ducloyer

HFW—Rémi Ducloyer

HFW continues Paris office growth with public law Partner hire

NEWS
The Court of Appeal's decision in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP has lifted months of uncertainty for Chartered Legal Executives while prompting a rethink of regulation and supervision
The assisted dying debate returns to Westminster as Lauren Edwards MP reintroduces legislation that stalled in the House of Lords last session despite clearing the Commons
A little-noticed provision of the Crime and Policing Act 2026 has fundamentally expanded corporate criminal liability
Artificial intelligence is transforming legal practice, but careless reliance on it is creating growing professional risks
The law offers cohabiting couples surprisingly greater protection after one partner dies than when they separate during life
back-to-top-scroll