This site is intended for health professionals only

At the heart of general practice since 1960

Read the latest issue online

CAMHS won't see you now

Civil Litigation Bill could lead to increased GP indemnity costs, MDDUS warns

A Bill proposed by the Scottish Government could push up fees for medical indemnity for GPs in Scotland, the MDDUS has warned.

The Civil Litigation (Expenses and Group Proceedings) (Scotland) Bill, which is aimed at making it more financially accessible to take legal action, proposes to stop claimants from ever having to pay the defendant's legal costs unless the claim was fraudulent.

The MDDUS had argued that the Bill should excempt medical negligence claims, but the first-stage report from Holyrood's Justice Committee on the Bill, published 21 December, did not back the view.

MDDUS senior lawyer and practice development manager Joanna Jervis said: 'The introduction of qualified one-way costs shifting (QOCS) will lead to increased costs in defending unsuccessful actions, which may affect our member subscriptions as well as the costs to the NHS more generally.

'We are disappointed that the committee did not take the opportunity of excluding clinical negligence cases from the QOCS provisions, bearing in mind that this additional burden on the public purse will inevitably restrict the resources available to deliver high quality NHS care.'

QOCS is already in place in England and MDDUS said it had seen an impact from this.

A spokesperson said: 'The bottom line is that if people can take claims with no financial risk to themselves it increases the chances they will do so. As a member-funded not for profit mutual that means any rise on cost is passed on to our members.'

The other impacts of the Civil Litigation Bill, if passed, would be the possibility for claimants to bring group actions for the first time, as well as the ability for solicitors to take on claimant cases on a 'no win, no fee' basis.

But the MDDUS welcomed the Justice Committee's recommendation to reform rules on additional fees to prevent a pursuer’s solicitor being entitled to judicial expenses, a success fee and an additional fee.

'This potentially amounts to triple counting and is not in the interests of justice. Instead, the court or auditor should take account of the extent of any success fee agreement in place,' said Ms Jervis.

GP indemnity costs tend to be significantly cheaper in Scotland compared with England, mainly because patients are less likely to bring medical negligence claims.

As chronicled by Pulse, the continuing rise to GP indemnity fees has prompted GPs to retire early, work fewer shifts and shun out-of-hours commitments.

Last year, the Department of Health committed to bringing in a state-backed scheme to reduce indemnity costs to GPs in England.


Readers' comments (4)

  • As far as I am aware, the oldest written legal legislation, 'The Code of the Hammurabi', made pursuers in legal action, subject to similar disciplinary action as the defendant faced. That was perceived as fair/equitable. Has 'human nature' changed completely over a short few millennia? Has 'natural justice' been abandoned for 'political expedience'?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • AlanAlmond

    always little changes to the law
    for the benefit of
    mostly the legal profession

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Vinci Ho

    I can see this as a double edge sword . On one end , the defendant, being presumed innocent under the spirit of common law , was ‘protected’ by not needing to pay his/her legal costs if the claimant was proven to be unsuccessful in the pursuit.
    On the other hand , this new bill is aiming at reducing inequality where financially ‘weaker’ claimants were ‘prevented’ from pursuing with the fear of paying hefty legal fees if the claim turned out to be unsuccessful, especially if the defendant was financially well off to appoint lawyers with high reputation.

    The culprit here is not the spirit of this new legislation . The ‘injustice’, instead(like many other well developed countries), lies exactly where lawyers are allowed to charge under a complex fee system to earn variable amount of profits.The Justice Committee’s recommendatiin recommendation to curb additional fees mentioned above, is perhaps trying to addresss this issue , but only partially.
    Look at the US , it never stops the temptation to criticise that the ‘rich’ with their ‘rich lawyers’ rule the court .......
    For us , this trend of more legal reforms only means one thing ; the state must pay our indemnity fees in full. This is not just about money but also showing willingness and responsibility of the state to share the burden of the high legal risks GPs are facing every day ,under a (yet) state-funded health system called NHS . Nothing more , nothing less.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Just Your Average Joe

    Take all lawyers out of medical negligence claims - have an independent panel that assesses cases and awards compensation like the criminal injuries system.

    No lawyers and faster payouts where deserving, and stops chancers as the panel will stop speculative claims, and pay where harm has occurred.

    Simple and effective and would save money by the billions.

    What chance politicians looking out for their legal system buddies will put this in place? None as they are corrupt like the 3rd world dictators they look down their noses upon.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say