Letter: Settling NHS negligence claims
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: Professor Harris ("Patients' damages can wait, says professor", 20 June) addresses only part of the problems of malpractice litigation on the economics of the health service since he considers only successful claims. He does not consider unsuccessful claims.
Most medical negligence claims are legally aided and are unsuccessful. The Legal Aid Board generally relies on the advice of the plaintiff's legal advisers in deciding whether or not to fund an action. This advice is not independent. It is not uncommon for such claims to be unsuitable or misconceived. A health authority, however blameless, is not able to recover its legal costs. It may even find itself under pressure to settle claims regardless of the merits on the grounds of commercial expediency, so called legal aid "blackmail".
The combined effect of the costs rule and poor decisions by the Board is to impoverish the health service such that funds are diverted from patient care to lawyers' fees. Only a surprisingly modest proportion is paid out as compensation.
There is no reason why the Board should not be required to reimburse health authorities the costs of defending hopeless claims.
Dr ANTHONY BARTON
London, N1
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments