<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0">
<channel>
<copyright>Copyright &#169; 2012 Paula Nash</copyright>
<pubDate>Thu, 17 May 2012 08:00:26 +0100</pubDate>
<lastBuildDate>Thu, 17 May 2012 08:00:26 +0100</lastBuildDate>
<docs>http://blog.lblaw.co.uk/</docs>
<description>Lanyon Bowlder Solicitors blog.</description>
<link>http://blog.lblaw.co.uk/</link>
<title>Lanyon bowdler Blog feed</title>

<managingEditor>info@lblaw.co.uk (Lanyon Bowdler)</managingEditor>
<webMaster>Paula Nash</webMaster>
<generator>Paula Nash</generator>
<language>en</language>
<category>Legal</category>
<ttl>1440</ttl>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Time is Running out to Claim for Care Home Fees]]></title>
<link>http://blog.lblaw.co.uk/time-is-running-out-to-claim-for-care-home-fees-383/</link>
<description><![CDATA[
Unknown to many, the Department of Health has set a deadline for families seeking to claim repayment of care home fees, where it is felt that they were wrongly charged.  The cut off date is 30 September 2012.  Unless families disputing fees paid between 1 April 2004 and 31 March 2011 register their claim before this date they will be unable to bring a claim.I wonder how many know or have been advised that where a persons primary need is a health need, they are eligible for NHS continuing healthcare which is 100% free and is not subject to means assessment. It is a basic principle of the NHS that all medical and nursing services are provided free of charge at the point of need.  This includes nursing care of all those who are resident in a care home.Many could now lose out on claims to recover care home fees which have been wrongly charged. It is believed that thousands across the UK have been wrongly charged for care, and in many cases even forced to sell their homes to cover care home costs.  Where a person has contributed to their fees for care from April 2004 onwards, they may be entitled to a reimbursement, even where the person who was cared for has since died but they must act quickly to register their claim before 30 September 2012.This really is the last chance to reclaim these fees.  
]]></description>
<category><![CDATA[Healthcare]]></category>
<pubDate>Wed, 02 May 2012 10:29:26 +0100</pubDate>
<guid>http://blog.lblaw.co.uk/time-is-running-out-to-claim-for-care-home-fees-383/</guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Botox - The Risks]]></title>
<link>http://blog.lblaw.co.uk/botox-the-risks-357/</link>
<description><![CDATA[
We learned recently of yet further warnings of serious injury associated with the use of botox for cosmetic purposes. 
Research suggests that Botulinum cosmetics products may cause brain damage.  This contradicts earlier findings about using botulinum neurotoxins for cosmetic purposes.
The study by the Italian National Research Council's Institute of Neuroscience, concludes it is not safe to use botulinum products (popularly known by their trade names Botox or Dysport or Xeomin) to get rid of the wrinkles in the face.  These products may cause brain damage because the toxins might be able to travel to the brain.
Worryingly we are told that the researchers injected a botulism product into rat's whisker muscles.  Three days later, they found remnants of a protein broken down by the toxin in part of the brain stem.  Later, signs of the toxin showed up in their brains. They found that it also moved to a part of the brain that controls long-term memory, spatial navigation and eye-head coordination.
It is common knowledge that Botulinum neurotoxin is a poisonous substance.  If inhaled, it would kill a person.  Botulinum toxin causes botulism poisoning, a serious and life-threatening illness in humans and animals.  It works by paralyzing muscles.
We are told that notwithstanding the known poisonous nature of this substance today, botulinum neurotoxin injection is the most commonly performed cosmetic procedure in the world.
Worldwide there has been an increase in lawsuits against manufacturers of botulinum toxins type A products. Many require a warning detailing serious side effects but does this go far enough?
More and more stories are emerging of sufferers of brain injury and other serious side effects arising from the use of botulism injections. Clearly additional research is needed. 
Until then, beware.]]></description>
<category><![CDATA[Clinical Negligence]]></category>
<pubDate>Fri, 13 Jan 2012 16:09:18 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://blog.lblaw.co.uk/botox-the-risks-357/</guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Acquired Brain Injury for Children and Young People - A Multi Disciplinary Approach?]]></title>
<link>http://blog.lblaw.co.uk/acquired-brain-injury-for-children-and-young-people-a-multi-disciplinary-approach-345/</link>
<description><![CDATA[
As a Solicitor specialising in clinical negligence claims I frequently work with children and young people who have an acquired brain injury.  In laymans terms an acquired brain injury (ABI) is brain damage caused by events occurring after birth.   
 
ABI can arise in any number of ways to include physical trauma from an accident or a non traumatic injury such as a stroke, brain tumour or infection to give a few examples.In a child or young person an ABI is inevitably devastating and has massive implications for development and well being.  Common sense dictates that it is important for any victim of brain injury to receive medical treatment and care which includes not only hospital treatment but by the time of discharge a clear care pathway from hospital to GP and Primary Care services with the involvement of childrens services to ensure there is continuity of care and ongoing support and rehabilitation.Whilst many experience first class medical care and support in the community following discharge, there are others who simply dont and seem to fall through the net.Still too frequently there is a complete failure to adopt and provide a multi-disciplinary approach and co-ordinate care.  Families struggle to access all appropriate support from local authorities with educational needs; needs for adapted accommodation, aids and equipment and respite care together with primary care services to include mental health services and the more  specialist services such as physiotherapy, speech and language therapy.  In Northern Ireland the Health and Social Care Board (HSCB) has produced an action plan for victims of acquired brain injury to ensure service improvement and to co-ordinate action in order to improve outcomes for patients, their families and carers.  It is a well written document and sets out a clear action plan.  The remainder of the UK is in my view not so lucky.  The Department of Health (assisted by the campaign group Every Child Matters) has produced best practice guidance for ABI but it has no statutory force and does not appear to be adhered to in many cases.  There is also a national service framework document for long term conditions which was written in 2005.  It is a pity the HSCB recommendations do not apply to the rest of the UK.I am told that the pathways are being refined as I write  lets hope so.  A clear pathway fully implemented is essential to protect the interests of those children in our society whose young lives are devastated by an acquired brain injury.  
]]></description>
<category><![CDATA[Clinical Negligence]]></category>
<pubDate>Thu, 01 Dec 2011 12:12:51 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://blog.lblaw.co.uk/acquired-brain-injury-for-children-and-young-people-a-multi-disciplinary-approach-345/</guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[The Future of Legal Aid for Clinical Negligence - the Lords Enter the Debate at Last]]></title>
<link>http://blog.lblaw.co.uk/the-future-of-legal-aid-for-clinical-negligence-the-lords-enter-the-debate-at-last-341/</link>
<description><![CDATA[
Is common sense finally going to prevail? News of the House of Lords debate on the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders bill, in which 54 Peers spoke suggests it might.Viscount Simon is reported as stating that Taking clinical negligence out of the scope of legal aid will prevent vast numbers of people ever having their case properly investigated, because the vast majority of clinical negligence victims are harmed at the hands of a state body  the NHS  there is a strong moral argument that the state should ensure that these people have access to justice..Many other Peers entered the debate to lend their support. Lord Clinton-Davies was perhaps one of the most vocal who in a hard hitting address to the Lords stated My hope is that these disgraceful endeavours will be frustrated. The House of Lords now has the chance to demonstrate that it prefers to protect the interests of ordinary people rather than the powerful. Lets hope it does. 
]]></description>
<category><![CDATA[Clinical Negligence]]></category>
<pubDate>Wed, 23 Nov 2011 16:55:21 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://blog.lblaw.co.uk/the-future-of-legal-aid-for-clinical-negligence-the-lords-enter-the-debate-at-last-341/</guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Victims of Medical Accidents Deprived of Access to Justice]]></title>
<link>http://blog.lblaw.co.uk/victims-of-medical-accidents-deprived-of-access-to-justice-243/</link>
<description><![CDATA[
In his speech to the Commons Kenneth Clarke portrayed a Legal Aid budget which was out of control, with annual spending of 914m.  The suggestion made was that the only beneficiaries of the present funding scheme were the fat cat lawyers.  Against this background, he sought to introduce planned cuts of 340m.
Jonathan Freedland in the Guardian newspaper on 16 November eloquently wrote of the true impact on access to justice.  He referred to the idea that underpinned the establishment of Legal Aid after the war.  That a true welfare state should provide universal access not only to education and health but to justice.  He pointed out that equality before the law has to mean equal access to the law.  In his view (and a view shared by many others), the planned cuts will undoubtedly have a serious impact on access to justice.
As part of this planned spending cut we are told that Legal Aid will be denied to those seeking to bring a claim for compensation for medical negligence.
Medical negligence, also known as clinical negligence, only amounts to a mere 1.85% of the entire Legal Aid budget.  The current scheme of public funding ensures that those of a low income, who are the victims of a medical mistake, can get access to justice.  Without such a scheme they will have no alternative but to try and find a solicitor who is willing to take their case on, on a no win no fee basis.  Inevitably this may be difficult. 
The outcome of clinical negligence claims is notoriously difficult to predict.   At the time of initial instruction the lawyer will not have sight of any medical records, or access to expert medical opinion and will only have the clients version of events.  Notwithstanding, he is required to assess the merits of any claim for compensation and decide whether or not to offer legal representation.  Even with formal claims screening procedures and risk assessment it remains difficult to accurately predict case outcome. 
Many lawyers are reluctant to take clinical negligence cases on on a "no win, no fee" basis because they are adverse to risk, and perhaps quite reasonably, do not wish to gamble their fees dependent on a successful outcome, where the prospects of success are unclear.  As a consequence it is inevitable that only the most clear cut cases will be taken on.  In this way many whose lives have been destroyed by medical negligence will be denied recourse to justice.  There is no other profession or service industry where payment for services is conditional on success.
The conditional fee agreement scheme when introduced allowed lawyers who took on cases, (and thereby effectively gambled payment of their fees dependent on a successful outcome and also agreed to wait for payment), to charge a success fee to reflect such risks and the cost of delayed payment.  It was made clear that in assessing risks it was necessary not only to look at the risks or prospects of success in an individual case, but to consider the overall level of risk in relation to all client matters.  There would be winning and losing cases in equal measures.  Statistically, provided the success fee was adequate, the winning cases would pay for the losing cases where costs had to be written off.
Kenneth Clarkes proposals rely upon a continuance of the current regime of no win no fee agreements, which suggests that he obviously has not read or considered in any detail Lord Jackson costs review and proposals for change to the current no win no fee scheme.
If the current plans and recommendations are implemented it is difficult to envisage precisely what help will be available to the many victims of medical injury who, through no fault of their own, may no longer be able to bring a claim for compensation.]]></description>
<category><![CDATA[Clinical Negligence]]></category>
<pubDate>Mon, 22 Nov 2010 18:48:14 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://blog.lblaw.co.uk/victims-of-medical-accidents-deprived-of-access-to-justice-243/</guid>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>
<!-- Page generated in 0.089198 seconds peaking at 4,093,680B of memory -->
