Tories back clinical negligence overhaul

Debate over reform of the clinical negligence system heated up this week, with personal injury solicitors backing 'radical' proposals from the Conservative Party just weeks before the government launches its White Paper on the issue.The Tories' consultation paper suggests that the burden of proof in cases worth less than 50,000 could shift to defendants to show they had not been negligent 'if a claimant could show on the balance of probabilities that his condition was a consequence of medical treatment, or its omission'.Cases worth less than 50,000 could be taken out of the courts and dealt with by tribunals to deal with 'rising disatisfaction' with the system, the paper says.The paper also moots the idea of dealing with future losses through periodic payments in cases involving more than 500,000 - perhaps with the court specifying an annual rate at which they could increase - rather than lump sum.Conservative Party central office is inviting responses to its proposals by 22 March.

A Department of Health spokeswoman confirmed that the White Paper was also expected around that time.Russell Levy, partner in the clinical negligence department at London firm Leigh Day & Co, said the government would do well to consider allowing periodic payments.

He also argued that reversing the burden of proof in some cases would cut costs, speed the process, and make it fairer.'This goes to show that even the Tories are prepared to embrace what many lawyers see as a radical solution, but I don't think it is so radical - it is practical and makes sense,' he said.Richard Vallance, head of litigation at London firm Charles Russell, backed Mr Levy's views, and said he hoped the government would adopt them.

He said: 'Alot of the ideas in the Tories' paper are already being considered by the Donaldson committee [set up by the government to investigate clinical negligence] because claimants have urged them upon it.'But Tim Goldburn, partner in Falmouth firm Preston Goldburn, said there should be more mediation.

'Tribunals and different burdens of proof would interfere in the relationship of trust between doctors and patients,' he said.Law Society President David McIntosh said: 'We would like to see a series of options provided to victims that will not replace their rights to seek justice in court, but could in many cases provide them with more appropriate remedies.'We would like to see a reform of the NHS complaints system, some form of fast-track system for small claims, and better use of mediation.'

By Paula Rohan