Higher legal fees may be needed to extend clinical negligence scheme

LOW-VALUE CLAIMS: Solicitors spent 19-23 hours on cases which should have taken just ten

An independent study of the pilot aimed at dealing with low-value clinical negligence claims within six months has concluded that solicitors' fees may have to be increased to cover the costs of the work done if the scheme is to be successfully extended.

The review by York University professor John Posnett into the project - which was set up last December by the NHS Litigation Authority, Action for Victims of Medical Accidents (AVMA) and resolution service Resolve - showed that the average time taken to deal with a case was five to six months, at a capped overall cost of 3,250.

Solicitors received a fixed fee of 1,500.

He predicted that if all cases worth less than 10,000 were handled by Resolve, the NHS could save 6.6 million each year.

However, solicitors involved in the pilot reported that the average amount of work done on each case was 19 to 23 hours, although the pilot was set up on the basis that they would spend ten hours.

'At 150 to 175 per hour, this means 2,850 to 4,025 per case,' Professor Posnett observed.

He suggested that the problem could be mitigated by increasing the volume of cases firms take on, although some solicitors said the fee should be increased to 2,500 or 3,500 - the current limit laid down by the Legal Services Commission for investigations.

A Law Society spokeswoman said the results on speedier resolution were encouraging.

'A report from the chief medical officer on clinical negligence reform is expected in soon and the introduction of a fast-track scheme should form part of that wider review of the system,' she added.

David Marshall, vice-president of the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, argued that the most effective way to deal with lower-value clinical negligence claims would be to award compensation of up to 10,000 through an independent, merged complaints system.

Speaking ahead of the findings last month, Rosamund Rhodes-Kemp, head of clinical negligence at Russell Jones & Walker - one of the firms that took part in the pilot - said the system had proven quicker, cheaper and less emotionally fraught than the traditional methods, but that there had been problems with profitability (see [2002] Gazette, 17 October, 1).

Paula Rohan