Bugs in the Hospital

Following recent press coverage of several local hospitals having to close because of outbreaks of norovirus, the winter vomiting bug, it may be an appropriate time to look at hospital acquired infections and the law.

On any occasion that you enter a hospital, you run the risk of catching one of the well known viruses that circle and travel around the hospital. Norovirus, clostridium difficile (c-diff) and MRSA are among the better known bugs which cause havoc in many wards up and down the country.

Once you have recovered from the ill-effects of the virus, you may well be wondering whether you can claim compensation for the rough time that you have had. Perhaps surprisingly, most cases of hospital acquired infections do not lead on to claims for compensation.

The main reason for this is that to bring a claim for compensation, you must be able to show negligence. The law caters for the fact that no matter how clean wards, surgical equipment and doctors’ hands are kept, there will always be traces of these miniscule viruses that can, and will, work their way into your system.

However, an important line does need to be drawn, in that if wards, surgical equipment and doctors’ hands aren’t kept clean, and if they’re allowed to get downright filthy, valid claims for compensation will arise. This distinction allows for some breathing space for the hospitals that do keep cleaning rotas and that do sanitise equipment (and hands), whilst holding to justice those that don’t.

Whilst it would be unfair to guess the cause of the recent reports of bug outbreaks, anyone who has been left poorly following a stay in a hospital that gave them cause for concern may want to seek legal advice as to their rights and options.

 

Joseph Norton

Move Over Nostradamus – Contempt Juror Jailed

It was only on 23rd December 2011 that, with remarkable perceptiveness, I wrote about the Juror in Manchester, jailed for taking time out from being a juror, to go down to London to watch the musical Chicago.

He seemingly wanted to experience the law from all sides and so he swapped his jurors hat for a pair of pyjamas with arrows on, well metaphorically speaking aty least, as he had a short spell of time inside.

In the post on 23rd December however, reference was also made to Dr Theodora Dallas, another juror in the news for the wrong reasons. Dr Dallas had been a juror in a case and seemingly against the strict instructions given to her as a juror, she had carried out internet research about the defendant in the case that she was trying.

In addition to her scout round the internet she is reported to heve compounded the mistake by telling her fellow jurors what she had discovered about the man in the dock. That resulted in the trial being aborted and a retrial having to take place.

In that previous post I suggested that the New Year would see further developments in the case. We did not have to wait long “to see what happens” as today Dr Dallas has been jailed for 6 months for Contempt of Court.

The six month sentence will mean that Dr Dallas serves 3 months and be on licence for the remainder of the sentence.

Remarkably part of the mitigation put forward on her behalf was that her grasp of english was “sometimes not that good”. That itself raises issues both about the course at the University of Bedfordshire that she taught, but also about the fact that the liberty of a defendant might have been affected by someone who maybe did not understand all that was going on in Court. 

Her plea in mitigation for a suspended sentence was not heeded however with the Judge passing sentence saying that “Misuse of the internet by a juror is always a most serious irregularity and an effective custodial sentence is virtually inevitable.”

Will Dr Dallas be the last of the hapless jurors making the legal headlines for the wrong reasons?

We wait to see what happens.

 

Adrian Witt

PIP Update

Following our recent update on the situation with Poly Implants Protheses (PIP) breast implants, we thought it would be a good idea to take stock and review the latest guidance and news on this issue. Hopefully, the latest statements and updates from government will have lead to some clarification……won’t they?

Last week the NHS agreed to remove and replace PIP implants that were fitted under the NHS. The vast majority of these 3,000 sets of implants will have been used as part of reconstructive surgery for women who developed breast cancer.

The government also stated that private clinics that have fitted PIP implants have a “moral duty” to remove and replace them. Since then, advertisements have been run in national newspapers and suchlike, stating that where clinics no longer exist, or where the clinics refuse to remove and replace the PIP implants that they fitted, ladies should speak to their GP in the first instance, as removal of the implants may be available should there be a clinical need to do so.

Despite private operators such as Holly House, Highgate Hospitals, Make Yourself Amazing, Ramsay Health Care, Spire Healthcare, BMI Healthcare, Nuffield Healthcare and HCA International agreeing to remove and replace PIP implants for free (if clinically necessary), the Harley Medical Group (having fitted just shy of 14,000 pairs of PIP implants) have outright refused to do anything about this. They state that they have neither the finances nor the doctors available to carry out such an action.

Amid reports of affected ladies marching to, and protesting in front of, private clinics on Harley Street in London, Health Secretary Andrew Lansley has again reiterated his disappointment that some private clinics were still failing to step up to their responsibilities and that he is reviewing the provision of private cosmetic surgery as a whole.

Whether or not these latest sound bites lead to any definitive action, or to any recompense for ladies affected, is still to be seen.

We wait to see what happens.

 

Joseph Norton

Whiplash Claims and the Insurance Industry

Once again the Insurers must be rubbing their hands with glee, but with a little nagging doubt still being there in the back of their collective minds.

The Transport Select Committee has suggested that the process of claiming compensation for whiplash injuries when an innocent motorist has been involved in a road accident, is responsible for the increases that we have seen recently in the premiums payable for car insurance.

Also regularly trotted out on news items about this issue is the undoubtedly irritating fact that people get unsolicited text messages from people encouraging them to make claims.

Here’s a revalation. Those texts are not lawful. They are not going to be from solicitors and nor are they likely to be from regulated Claims Management Companies. They are going to be much more likely to be from fly-by-night chancers who many lawyers would like to see out of business.

Some years ago, the law decided that Claims Management Companies should be regulated and pay a fee to the MoJ for their accreditation. Undoubtedly there are ethical Claims Management Companies, but equally there are organisations that are not and who continue to trade with complete disregard for the law. They are more likely to be your texting friends.

For insurers however, if they get their way and referral fees are banned and it becomes more difficult for people to bring claims for compensation, then gone will be the excuse that they use as to why they have had to increase their premiums.

They will also have lost the opportunity to make money that they get from being able to sell on the details of claims to lawyers or claims management companies. This is the “dirty little secret” that Jack Straw recently referred to as being something that seemed to come as a surprise to him, despite his role as Secretary of State for Justice in the last Labour government.

It is very easy to have a go at people who make claims for compensation and it is even easier to have a go at the lawyers who act for the injured people in pursuing such claims. Everyone with a car pays for car insurance and they will have seen premiums rise and it is very convenient for government and the insurers to point at lawyers and say “look – they’re the ones to blame.”.

Lawyers are an easy target to hit and to say that it is all down to them as to why insurance costs as it does. Let the dust settle around this however and I for one would be very surprised if the level of premiums falls.

I think we know what will happen.

 

Adrian Witt

PIP Breast Implants

Poly Implants Protheses (PIP) Breast Implants

After being contacted by a number of ladies who have had breast implants made by French company Poly Implants Protheses (PIP), it appears that increasing concern and anxiety is leading many ladies to seek legal advice.

By way of background information, it is thought that around 40,000 ladies may have had PIP breast implants used as part of a cleavage enhancing operation. There may be as many as 3,000 NHS patients who have had the implants used during reconstructive surgery following a diagnosis of breast cancer.

Problems were first identified in 2010, when PIP implants were banned after it was found that the silicone used to make the implants was of industrial, rather than medical, quality. Industrial-grade silicone does not go through the rigorous testing that medical-grade silicone does, and is instead used for things such as padding patients’ mattresses.

Due to the poor quality of silicone used, the implants are thought to carry a greater risk of rupturing, which can lead to pain and inflammation in the surrounding area. There has been no link between the implants and the development of cancer, however the French government has stated that all PIP implants should be removed as a precautionary measure and that they will fund the costs of removal.

The British government have not followed suit, instead stating that there is no case for enforcing a mass removal. Andrew Lansley, the Health Secretary, has asked private clinics to provide him with data on PIP implants by close of business on 5th January 2012, and it is expected that the government will provide a further statement at some point on 6th January. 

Women who are concerned about whether or not they will be affected by this issue are urged to contact their GP or their operating surgeon in the first instance. An ultrasound scan can detect if an implant is ruptured; symptoms of pain and inflammation may or may not be present. Removal is recommended should a rupture be identified, and on 4th january 2012 Nuffield Health, a private healthcare provider, agreed to meet the costs of removing the implants, should their former patients be concerned about them.

Whilst this continues to be a live issue, with fresh news stories emerging daily and ladies continuing to seek medical advice, Waldrons are happy to talk to anyone who is concerned about PIP implants.

Should removal be required, claims for compensation may arise with ladies being able to claim compensation for the unnecessary surgery that they may need, together with other losses such as childcare costs or lost earnings that may accrue whilst in hospital.

Coming as this does, in the wake of the problems surrounding Solihull Hospital and the “Cleavage Sparing Mastectomy” operations carried out by Mr Paterson at the hospital, anyone seeking legal advice on this issue can call our specialist Clinical Negligence Department on 01384 811 811 or by clicking here to access our online enquiry form and we will contact you.

14 days for Contempt and All That Jazz

Oh dear oh dear. Someone had not read the excellent blog post about the dangers of Jurors doing things that they are not supposed to.

First there was the Juror, sentenced to a term of imprisonment for contacting a defendant in a criminal trial – while other verdicts in the trial were still to be considered.

Then there was the recent example of Theadora Dallas, a lecturer no less at the University of Bedfordshire who carried out internet research on one of the defendants in the case where she was a Juror, despite being expressly told not to do so. The trial in which she was a juror had to be aborted and a retrial ordered after her escapades. The Attourney General has recently been given permission to bring proceedings for contempt of Court against her. No doubt this will result in some kind of further proceedings in the New Year.

Finally we have the cherry on the top of the silly-cake.

This relates to one Matthew Banks, an apparent lover of musical theatre. Mr Banks was on the last trial during his course of jury service. He was given a ticket to go to see the musical Chicago in London. The only fly in his particular ointment was that he was on jury service and therefore the two were incompatible.

Having heard from other jurors apparently that trials had quite happily carried on when they were a juror down, young Mr Banks took the decision to take “a sickie” and tell the Court that he was not well enough to come to Court, thus leaving him free to head down to London to get a bit of the old “razzle dazzle” and watch Chicago.

Sadly for Mr Banks, this was not such a good idea. The trial on which he was a juror had to be adjourned for the day. Every master criminal makes one fatal error and although Matthew Banks is hardly that, nevertheless he too made a fatal error. That was not to brief properly his partner who was apparently called by the Court and told them that Matthew was in London.  D-oh!

Sadly for Mr Banks, the Judge in the case jailed him for 14 days for Contempt of Court. The Judge acknowledged that he did so with a “heavy heart” but that lying to court officials for such a frivolous reason was a serious offence. He was released after 5 days, but I dare say that despite the reduction his lesson has been learned and he is unlikely to do it again. To be fair to him he has acknowledged that it wasn’t his smartest decision ever.

Will 2012 bring further examples of jurors who don’t do what they are told?

We wait to see what happens.

Adrian Witt

 

The Kim is Dead – Long Live the Kim!

The Kim is Dead – Long Live the Kim.

Waldrons’ North Korea and Probate experts can’t help but notice that this weekend saw the death of the “Dear Leader” Kim Jong-il, the Head of State in North Korea.

The Probate Laws in North Korea are, we have to confess, one of the few legal areas about which we are unable to offer specific legal advice. When questioned, Trudy Pratt, head of Probate and Private Client services at Waldrons said “I have no idea what the nil rate band in North Korea is. Do they even have one? You will have to ask someone else.”

However, there are no doubt people in Pyongyang for whom the issue is of great significance.

Unlike most people who make a Will, Kim Jong-il probably had more than most to leave. Indeed one of the first things that he had to decide on was who was going to inherit his country.

Kim Jong-il himself had the country bequeathed to him by his father Kim-il Sung. Wisely and perhaps after having received advice on the issue from one of our Probate experts, Kim Jong-il dealt with the issue of that particular gift during his lifetime. That was clearly a wise move as it meant that the choice of his successor was his own and not left to the intestacy rules which otherwise govern what happens when someone dies without a Will. Kim Jong-un therefore is already known as the “Great Successor”.

Sadly Kim Jong-il probably had an awful lot more to leave, potentially including a stock of nuclear weaponry. In this country such a bequest would almost certainly fail, be seized and result in a lot of difficult questions being asked at the Probate Registry as you tried to get your Grant of Probate. MI5 might have a question or two about it as well.

In North Korea, again, like most people, there is a funeral to organize, although again highlighting the differences between the two systems, the thirteen days of national mourning is not common in this country.

Did Kim Jong-il have a Will? Who knows? What we do know however is that he was keen on his well organized parades with lots of goose-stepping soldiers marching past with finely honed military precision and so we must suspect that he did. A fastidious man like that, tyrant, Dictator and generally unpleasant individual though he may have been, probably made sure that his affairs were well in order before he died.

What then for the people north of the 38^th Parallel?

We wait to see what happens.

Adrian Witt