Report comment

I'm sure you are, Anon, 4.22, I'm sure you are glad I don't run the NHSLA. My concern is that, first, the claimant in this case took years to get his £50,000, had no provision for the continued support of his dependents, assuming he had some, during his life and after his death and that vast quantities of money will no doubt be paid to expert witnesses, barristers, solicitors and in court fees. Assuming £100,000 was paid out per side that would mean that it cost four times the amount paid to the victim and that he and his family had to scrape by in the meantime. And what about his dependents after his death? And had he obtained the £1m lump sum claimed and died soon after, but had no dependents, some distant relation(s) would have received a windfall. not to mention the 40% IHT payable, yes, back to the state...

Does all that not appear absurd? It does to me. Surely it would have been far better to have a system whereby he received an income stream immediately, rather than years after the event, and that whatever he did get did not depend on the flakiness or otherwise of his expert witnesses? And £200,000 in costs when liability was admitted... Yes, I know I know nothing about clin. neg., but actually you don't need to be to see how mad the present system has become.