header-logo header-logo

Fixed costs for clinical negligence?

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

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

Myers & Co—Jen Goodwin

Myers & Co—Jen Goodwin

Head of corporate promoted to director

Boies Schiller Flexner—Lindsay Reimschussel

Boies Schiller Flexner—Lindsay Reimschussel

Firm strengthens international arbitration team with key London hire

Corker Binning—Priya Dave

Corker Binning—Priya Dave

FCA contentious financial regulation lawyer joins the team as of counsel

NEWS
Social media giants should face tortious liability for the psychological harms their platforms inflict, argues Harry Lambert of Outer Temple Chambers in this week’s NLJ
The Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024—once heralded as a breakthrough—has instead plunged leaseholders into confusion, warns Shabnam Ali-Khan of Russell-Cooke in this week’s NLJ
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has now confirmed that offering a disabled employee a trial period in an alternative role can itself be a 'reasonable adjustment' under the Equality Act 2010: in this week's NLJ, Charles Pigott of Mills & Reeve analyses the evolving case law
Caroline Shea KC and Richard Miller of Falcon Chambers examine the growing judicial focus on 'cynical breach' in restrictive covenant cases, in this week's issue of NLJ
Ian Gascoigne of LexisNexis dissects the uneasy balance between open justice and confidentiality in England’s civil courts, in this week's NLJ. From public hearings to super-injunctions, he identifies five tiers of privacy—from fully open proceedings to entirely secret ones—showing how a patchwork of exceptions has evolved without clear design
back-to-top-scroll