NHS negligence bill tops £1bn a year

Law Society warns cases being needlessly drawn out by health trusts as patients face cuts to legal aid

Indefensible legal claims for mistakes by doctors and nurses are being contested unnecessarily by "macho" NHS lawyers, the head of the Law Society warned as the bill for damages exceeded £1bn for the first time.

Linda Lee, the society's president, told The Independent on Sunday that court battles – and costs – over medical blunders were being drawn out by health trusts when they should settle early "for the good of the patient". She warned that plans by Kenneth Clarke, the Justice Secretary, to scrap legal aid for clinical negligence cases will limit access to justice for thousands of victims of botched operations and misdiagnosed illnesses.

Ministers are determined to halt "a rising tide of litigation" in the NHS, and will publish plans to abolish legal aid for all clinical negligence cases within weeks. Patients will be told to use "no win, no fee" lawyers instead.

The total annual bill for clinical negligence claims leapt by a third in 2010-11 to £1.04bn, up from the £770m paid out by the NHS Litigation Authority in 2009-10. However, legal costs on top of this amount for such cases topped £286m. One in 10 people who undergo treatment in hospital are victims of medical accidents, according to the Law Society.

Mrs Lee told The IoS: "One of the difficulties has always been that indefensible cases have been fought, and that increases costs. It is a sort of macho thing, [saying] 'I don't want to be seen to be culpable'. It is in everyone's interest to settle as quickly and as fairly as possible."

Last year, a quarter of all clinical negligence claims were funded by legal aid, with a third of legal aid cases brought on behalf of children. Mrs Lee said the removal of legal aid would increase "hurdles" for claimants. "I don't believe that people should say 'this is too expensive for the Government so they don't deserve their chance'."

She warned that mistakes could continue to be made if legal cases are not brought, as they put negligence in the spotlight. "Quite often changes have been brought about because of litigation. That might be the wrong way of doing things, but that's what happens. Litigation may be the only way to highlight negligence." More than 20,000 people have backed the Law Society's Sound Off for Justice campaign against legal aid cuts.

Andrew Lansley, the Secretary of State for Health, has ordered a further emphasis on safety to prevent medical mistakes from happening in the first place. But he also told MPs last week: "We need to try to offset a rising tide of litigation and cost associated with clinical negligence cases."

A Department of Health spokesperson said: "There are a number of reasons costs may have increased over the past few years, such as the cost of legal fees and the effects of court judgments that set legal precedents on how settlements should be assessed."

Register for free to continue reading

Registration is a free and easy way to support our truly independent journalism

By registering, you will also enjoy limited access to Premium articles, exclusive newsletters, commenting, and virtual events with our leading journalists

Please enter a valid email
Please enter a valid email
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Please enter your first name
Special characters aren’t allowed
Please enter a name between 1 and 40 characters
Please enter your last name
Special characters aren’t allowed
Please enter a name between 1 and 40 characters
You must be over 18 years old to register
You must be over 18 years old to register
Opt-out-policy
You can opt-out at any time by signing in to your account to manage your preferences. Each email has a link to unsubscribe.

By clicking ‘Create my account’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Already have an account? sign in

By clicking ‘Register’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Register for free to continue reading

Registration is a free and easy way to support our truly independent journalism

By registering, you will also enjoy limited access to Premium articles, exclusive newsletters, commenting, and virtual events with our leading journalists

Already have an account? sign in

By clicking ‘Register’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Join our new commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in