header-logo header-logo

COVID-19: single payout for bereaved families

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

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Michael Zander KC, emeritus professor at LSE, revisits his long-forgotten Crown Court Study (1993), which surveyed 22,000 participants across 3,000 cases, in the first of a two-part series for NLJ
Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) was a landmark test of how UK law applies to AI training—but does it leave key questions unanswered, asks Emma Kennaugh-Gallagher of Mewburn Ellis in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll