Pulse coverage had ‘instrumental’ effect in £10m vicarious liability case, says GP

A GP partner who faced a ‘vicarious liability’ claim worth millions has said Pulse’s coverage of the case was ‘instrumental’ in a medical defence organisation’s decision to agree to cover potential costs.

The group of partners at University Health Service Southampton, including Dr Matt Prendergast, faced a claim in excess of £10m under vicarious liability, and a further £2m in legal fees, due to legal action against their salaried GP.

In 2018, the salaried GP completed a medical form for a skydive during a consultation with a student, but failed to include some pre-existing medical issues. During the skydive, the student was seriously injured, and they started a legal claim against the salaried GP in 2021. 

Since completing the medical form was private work, the salaried GP was covered by the Medical Defence Union (MDU), rather than the state-backed clinical negligence indemnity scheme.  

Dr Prendergast said the main medical indemnifiers offer discretionary indemnity – meaning the amount that they agree to cover is not capped but is also decided upon at the discretion of the insurer.

Since the MDU refused to guarantee it could cover the total potential damages of over £10m, the patient’s lawyers extended the claim to include the practice partners, who were represented by the Medical Protection Society (MPS) under a vicarious liability claim.

However, the MPS told the partners that it did not cover vicarious liability due to lack of demand.

The situation also caused ‘friction’ within the partnership because of retirements that were taking place around the time of the claim, Pulse was told.

Dr Prendergast said the situation had severe effects on partners’ home lives and financial security. One partner had considered divorce to protect their family financially, while another considered ending their life to avoid passing debts or liabilities onto their family.

In September 2024, Dr Prendergast spoke to Pulse about his experience and to warn practices about the risks of vicarious liability – which he now says was a key turning point in his case. 

He told Pulse: ‘That article was instrumental in moving the dial. It made a real difference. 

‘The MPS’s view is that, following that article, they (the MDU) then said, “we will cover it (the £10m damages)”. They said, “we don’t view that there is a cap” – before that point, they had never said that.’

Following the article, the MDU stated they expected to meet the claim and did not consider themselves restricted. The partners were ultimately removed from the claim entirely, which Dr Prendergast said they owed in large part to their solicitor, Suzanne Tate. 

Dr Prendergast told Pulse he did not believe signing ‘fit for’ certificates was ever worth the risk for GPs and that private sport and exercise medicine doctors would be better suited to assess this. 

He also urged all GP colleagues at a practice to be indemnified by the same provider and to ensure that partnership agreements are signed and do not exclude ‘legacy claims’.

‘Although you may find it difficult to mandate this, in our case we pay for colleagues on a discretionary basis and will not if they have an alternative provider’, he said. 

It comes as the case against the salaried GP – now the sole defendant after the GP partners were extricated from the claim – has now been heard in the High Court.  

Former Southampton University student Miriam Barker, now 29, is suing Dr Aneela Hafiz for £15m, claiming she should not have cleared her as fit to skydive before the accident that left her paralysed. 

The accident in April 2018 caused a ‘catastrophic spinal cord injury’ and Ms Barker is now wheelchair-reliant due to the extensive spinal damage. 

The court hearing dealt with the evidence to be adduced at a full trial of Ms Barker’s claim at a later date. 

Pulse contacted the MPS, MDU, and Medical and Dental Defence Union of Scotland (MDDUS) to clarify if there has been any change to their vicarious liability policies.  

Dr Rob Hendry, chief member officer and medical director at the MPS, told Pulse: ‘Claims in relation to non-NHS contracted work are infrequent, and vicarious liability claims for non-NHS contracted work are extremely rare. There has therefore not been demand for a vicarious liability product from MPS, but we continue to keep the products and services we provide under review. 

‘In the absence of a vicarious liability product which covers compensatory damages, our discretionary approach meant we could still step in to defend the five GP partners drawn into this case, who are members. This included doing everything possible to extricate them from the claim and covering their legal defence costs.  

‘While we know the unexpected involvement of the practice partners in this case has caused significant stress, we are pleased that we have been able to fully extract them from this claim. Discretionary indemnity means looking for ways we can support members, not turn them away, and this is a positive example of that in action.’ 

The MDU’s director of professional services, Dr Caroline Fryar, said the company’s position on vicarious liability ‘has not changed’.

‘At the MDU, we know every case is different. On occasions where vicarious liability becomes a factor in a claim, and where multiple indemnifiers are involved in a case, we work constructively behind the scenes to ensure matters are dealt with appropriately and expeditiously. We aim, at all times, to put the interests of our members first’, she said.

An MDDUS spokesperson said: ‘MDDUS expects individual GPs to hold their own indemnity, and we would look at every case against a member, including when these are GP partners, and whether it involves vicarious liability or not. Our aim is always to look to use positive discretion to support our members.’