Common Misconceptions about the Compensation Process
March 02, 2010
A recent Channel 4 Cutting Edge documentary explored the concept of ‘compensation culture’ and the perception of ‘compensation’ lawyers in the field of personal injury law.
Clinical negligence lawyers are also coming under scrutiny and are being attacked for the payouts that are made by the NHS in clinical negligence claims, both in terms of compensation and legal fees. One of the key criticisms is that the money paid out in claims is money that could be spent on providing healthcare.
Sadly, when these statistics are reported, an explanation for the payouts is never provided. Most prudent lawyers invite the NHS to accept liability for a medical accident at the earliest possible opportunity with a view to saving costs, yet, it is often the case that liability is denied which means that both parties then have to adduce costly medical evidence to support their respective positions and take the case to court. Sometimes, cases settle years after the medical accident for a sum of compensation without the NHS making an admission. Recently published research, conducted by a respected law firm , revealed that out of 85 clinical negligence claims, the average time taken to settle a case was 6.4 years!
Where compensation pay-outs are high, it is usually because a claimant’s losses are high. Often, seriously injured claimants are dependent on their compensation to meet their future care and treatment needs and also to pay the rent, mortgage, bills and daily outgoings where they are unable to work. In reality, care and treatment costs are high.
It should also be remembered that a claimant is required to provide evidence to support every aspect of his/her claim. Reports from medical experts will constitute the evidence of the injury sustained whilst documentary evidence such as payslips would show a claimant’s pre-medical accident earnings and be used as a basis for a loss of earnings claim.
It is true to say that people are now very aware of their right to receive medical treatment of a reasonable standard. This can only be a good thing as it should serve to improve the standards of care for everybody.
People who criticize the apparent rise in the so called ‘compensation culture’ need to answer the following question: if a mistake that could and should have been avoided was made, why should the victim of that mistake if they have genuinely suffered injury and loss be prevented from seeking compensation for their injury and loss? When something goes wrong with medical treatment, it can often have a profound effect on the person concerned and their family.
Another noteworthy point is that the NHSLA (which is the organisation that acts for the NHS in clinical negligence claims) has proven even through its own research that many potential claimants would probably not choose to sue if they received a quick and sincere apology. Such apologies make patients feel that medical errors are being taken seriously and that changes are being made to prevent the same thing happening again to someone else. Sadly, it has also been proven that doctors are slow to apologise, despite being advised by the NHSLA to do so when the situation calls for it.