Cookie policy notice

By continuing to use this site you agree to our cookies policy below:
Since 26 May 2011, the law now states that cookies on websites can ony be used with your specific consent. Cookies allow us to ensure that you enjoy the best browsing experience.

This site is intended for health professionals only

At the heart of general practice since 1960

Government to push ahead with cap on clinical negligence legal fees

The Government will set up a working group to look at fixing recoverable costs for clinical negligence claims with a value up to £25,000.

This is the conclusion from a consultation into proposals to reduce the amounts paid out by taxpayers to lawyers representing claimaints against the NHS.

The response, which comes over a year after the consultation was launched, backs the recommendation from Lord Justice Jackson's review of civil litigation costs that the 'the Civil Justice Council should in conjunction with the Department of Health set up a working party, including both claimant and defendant representatives, to develop a bespoke process for clinical negligence claims initially up to £25,000 together with a grid of [fixed recoverable costs] for such cases'.

The working group is expected to report back this autumn on fixing costs and wider reforms of the clinical negligence process, with the Department of Health and Social Care adding that GPs should be represented on the group.

However, medical defence organisations indicated that the move on its own would not be enough to bring down GP indemnity costs. MDU, MDDUS and MPS all said they had pushed for FRC for claims with a value of up to £250,000.

MPS medical director Dr Rob Hendry said: 'We had hoped to see a bolder decision on the threshold with cases up to the value of £250,000 included in a scheme. While we understand the argument for not capping legal costs for the most expensive and complex claims, we believe it is appropriate and viable to include claims up to £250,000.

'Disproportionate legal fees are still a significant issue for claims up to this value – setting the threshold at £25,000 would help, but the benefits would be far greater if the threshold were set at a higher level.'

Dr Matthew Lee, Medical Defence Union professional services director, said that 'the announcement of a Civil Justice Council working group to examine excessive legal costs in clinical negligence claims is a delayed but still welcome first step', adding that he hoped the long-touted plans would 'move ahead faster now'.

But he added: 'Fixing costs for legal fees will only make a difference if the threshold for clinical negligence claims is set at £250,000, not £25,000 as proposed last year by Lord Justice Jackson.

'Patients who believe they have been negligently harmed must have access to justice, but fixed costs are fairer and will help to establish some much needed balance to the system.'

MDDUS chief executive Chris Kenny said: 'We remain of the view that a cap of £250,000 is both necessary and proportionate. The report also shows that the arguments in favour of a cap in excess of £25,000 have been well made. We look forward to discussing these points in more detail as part of the working group.'

It comes as health secretary Jeremy Hunt announced plans for a state-backed indemnity scheme for GPs last October although plans are not expected to form before next year.

Niall Dickson, chief executive of the NHS Confederation, said: 'It must surely be fair to cap the amount lawyers can charge for their costs, and we welcome the decision to set up a group to work on this - we trust that the Government will act quickly on its recommendations.'

He said the rising cost of clinical negligence cases was 'unsustainable and already means that vast resources that could be used by the NHS are being diverted elsewhere'.

However, opponents told the consultation the move would simply drive costs elsewhere or limit patients' access to justice and redress, as lawyers might be unwilling to take on cases because of the fixed fee.


Readers' comments (3)

  • We need a sensible upper limit for compensation for negligence claim. giving 4 and 5 million pound is not sustainable in long run.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Do we need to remember that the compensation includes PRIVATE health costs assessment so the successful claimants should no longer be eligible for NHS care OR the compensation should be adjusted to exclude health care.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Just Your Average Joe

    Tribunel of independent doctors to sit lawyer free - so hugely reduced costs, who award fixed amounts to those who are wronged in a fast and timely manner.

    Throwing out all spurious fishing claims, and only paying out with genuine harm, injury, or negligence.

    Remove all lawyers and billions will be saved.

    There is no need for lawyers to waste years in cases, and court time and fees, from adversarial processes, as panel looks at cause/effect and liability, and would ward payments accordingly.

    Tribunals with experts and lay members for sake of openness, and support for independent/voluntary advocates to help patients where needed.

    No money wasted from patient payouts for lawyers as well.

    Why won't it work - as it would save billions for the NHS - because the lawyers doing the reviews - won't bite the hand that feeds them all.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say