There has been a lot of publicity in the press recently about the serious failing by paramedics and GPs who took part in the East of England Ambulance Service Trust Trial.
Mr Frere-Smith was one of three patients who died following the trial, the inquest was told. A fourth required intensive care.
This may seem a strange statement to be making, however an insurance company took a case all the way to the Supreme Court arguing that they should be entitled to refuse to pay out on a genuine claim.
The case itself related to a cargo ship whereby the engine room flooded. The crew lied about the cause of the flood but importantly the actual cause of the flood was something that the insurance covered. (more…)
What is Patient Consent? When a patient attends a doctor or consultant the issue of consent is extremely important. A patient’s consent for medical treatment is only valid if it covers the relevant treatment, it is given voluntarily and the patient has capacity to do so. In addition a patient must be informed appropriately about the procedure before consenting. Without such consent any treatment that takes place could potentially be the tort of battery and trespass. In Clinical Negligence claims this could also involve an allegation that the GP or consultant was negligent as they failed to obtain the necessary consent. (more…)
We are absolutely delighted to be taking part in the very first ‘Muffins for Meso in May’ for Mesothelioma UK. http://www.mesothelioma.uk.com/fundraising-news-april-2016/news-2016/muffins-for-meso-in-may-request-your-pack-today-and-start-baking-for-meso/
It is all becoming a bit too familiar for us as we constantly hear reports about the NHS missing their targets in one way or another. Official figures from November 2015 have recently been released and it is very worrying indeed – with Ambulances, the 111 phone service and Cancer services all missing key targets. A&E departments’ performance were at their worst since record-keeping began in 2010.
Has anyone noticed a dramatic fall in their car insurance premiums over the last few years? Because this is precisely what the Insurance Industry promised the Government a few years ago. (more…)
Did you know that a loop hole in the law means that ex-service personnel are being denied large sums of compensation compared to civilians with the same illness as in many cases, as it is not possible to sue the Ministry of Defence for exposure to Asbestos before 1987. (more…)
There has been a lot of concerns that the Access to Medical Treatments (Innovation) Bill will put NHS patients at risk. George Freeman, Health Minister, has dismissed these concerns by telling MPs that the Bill “in no way damages patient safety”.
Despite these words of reassurance, many critics are still concerned that it does pose a significant threat to patients, particularly those who are vulnerable. We will have to wait and see what happens, but once again it is the vulnerable who appear to be at risk by the proposed changes.
The Insurance Industry’s attempts to deprive injured people of compensation continues.
Their next agenda appears to be to try and convince the Government to make it very difficult for Claimants to even take forward Noise Induced Hearing Loss claims.
Noise Induced Hearing Loss claims have always been difficult to take forward – which is why you need a Specialist Solicitor to do so. This is because the Court already accepts that it is okay for an employer to expose their workers to some noise whilst at work. This forces Claimants to obtain extensive Expert evidence, both from a Medical Expert and also an Engineering Expert.
The Insurance Industry’s stance remains that they intend to deny many cases going forward – but they have now suggested to the Government that Claimants should be subject to fixed (low) costs if they succeed with their claim.
We have already seen this sort of stance from the Insurance Industry in relation to whiplash cases – whereby they have gone so far as to try and suggest that whiplash does not even exist.
The main difficulty will be that an Insurance Company has vast funds to defend any Personal Injury claim – and the Insurance Industry will never accept any kind of suggestion that their ability to defend a claim should be restricted at all.
Therefore, now more than ever, people who have been injured need to speak to a Specialist Personal Injury Solicitor – to ensure that their entitlement to compensation is protected.
Richard Clegg, Workplace Accident Solicitor at GMS LAW.
On 19 July 2013, the Claimant attempted to visit Piccolo Restaurant, owned by the Defendant. There were steps at the front door which meant he was unable to enter the building. When he asked for a ramp, he was told that none were available. He was invited to eat in the outside area as there was no wheelchair access.
The Claimant issued proceedings seeking a declaration that he was discriminated against, and damages for injury to his feelings. The Defence filed by Keaz Ltd was on the basis that all reasonable steps had been taken to accommodate the use of the premises by those with a disability.
The Judge found that there had been a “complete absence” by the Defendant to consider the needs of disabled people when they had renovated their premises. “Simple adjustments could probably have avoided the problems by means of ramps or lifts and certainly adjustment to the premises”. The Judge held that the Claimant had been unlawfully discriminated against and was entitled to compensation for the injury to his feelings and the stress caused by the incident.
When assessing the damages, the Court took into account a number of factors including the distress caused to Mr Fogerty on the night in question.
This case is a clear warning that businesses need to look at things from the other person’s perspective. A simple ramp seemed obvious to Mr Fogerty – and also seemed obvious to the Court.
The Court was not impressed by the Restaurant’s assumption that people in wheelchairs could simply be left outside to eat.
