Report this comment to a moderator

Have you had an injury?

A few points to make re clin neg. Following the housing boom of the 1990/2000s increasing numbers of people were unable to qualify for legal aid. Changes also incurred in the early to mid 2000s when the funding guidance for clinical negligence claims was altered. Costs benefit ratios were then applied to claims and a large number of Claimants found themselves unable to pursue clinical negligence claims under legal aid. Clinical negligence is not an area in which the legal expense insurance (LEI) market has reached into and consequently the vast majority of claims now being pursued are by way of a Conditional Fee Agreement or Collective CFA with after the event insurance (ATE) protection. This type of funding has brought a particular discipline to clinical negligence lawyers and ensures that only viable claims are pursued and non viable claims are quickly discontinued once negative medical evidence comes to light. It should be noted that whilst the government is now complaining of conditional fees and uplifts in 2010, before the advent of CFAs the NHS Litigation Authority was complaining about the use of so called “legal aid blackmail” where they alleged that a weak case could be brought close to trial with the support of the Legal Services Commission. The grumble now is that cases are being heavily vetted and pursued under CFAs. With regard to budgets it should be noted that any increase in the NHSLA budget due to conditional fees has to be balanced against the much reduced clinical negligence legal aid budget. Has this been looked at / will it be looked at by Jackson? When attacks are made upon clinical negligence lawyers to blame them for the legal bill incurred by NHS this must be viewed in proportion to the expanding amount of medical treatment that has been undertaken by the NHS in recent years. There has been a significant investment in NHS surgery and over the past 13 years this has led to surgery being undertaken much quicker and in some instances the speed of the result has not always meant that the right result has been achieved. As ever, the claims that do litigate represent the tip of the iceberg with the vast majority of claims not being pursued at all due to a belief that there is insufficient access to justice. All in all a somewhat odd approach from this government which has ordered an inquiry into the scandal at Stafford but is now set do permanent harm to access to justice for people who are the very victims of Stafford hospital.

28-Jul-2010

7:04 pm