Specialist Solicitors

Funding Options

Clinical Negligence Law

Compensation Calculation

NHS Complaints

Accident & Emergency

Coroners Inquests

GP Negligence

General Surgery

Cancer Diagnosis

Brain Haemorrhage

Birth Injury

Hypoglycaemia

Obstetrics & Gynaecology

Cauda Equina Syndrome

Cosmetic Surgery

Female Sterilisation

Vasectomy Failure

UK Clinical Negligence Law

Though healthcare professionals may generally be competent, there are some who commit grievous errors for various reasons including carelessness and lack of medical skills. Clinical negligence law makes these less than satisfactory healthcare professionals liable for the harm done to the patient and ensures that they are responsible for paying compensation. Many members of the public do not know when a doctor should be held legally liable and subject to legal action. Just because medical treatment did not achieve the patient's desired results or the patient became more ill after treatment or dies following treatment does not automatically warrant the allegation of negligence against a doctor. It should also be clarified that even when the wrong cause of treatment is chosen a the doctor may not be held legally liable for negligence.

The Bolam Test

The Bolam Test states that the actions of a healthcare professional will be evaluated in comparison to the actions of other healthcare professionals with similar qualifications practicing in the same area of medicine at a similar place and time. So, if a significant number of equally-competent doctors are believed to prefer a medical procedure similar to that chosen by the doctor under question, the latter will probably not be considered guilty of negligence, despite the fact that another group of equally-competent doctors might select another more effective type of medical treatment. The Bolam test has a further stipulation that the failed treatment chosen by the doctor in question should be ‘logical’ for the condition diagnosed (even when a group of equally-qualified doctors would have chosen the failed ‘non logical’ treatment over others.)

Duty of Care & Harm Done

It should also be proven that the doctor had an obligation of duty of care to the injured party (based on normal physician/patient relationship). In addition the court must also be convinced that the treatment selected by the doctor in question harmed the patient - this could be difficult to prove because the patient was already sick when he was given the treatment.

The Limitation Act of 1980

The person pursuing litigation should also be aware of the Limitation Act 1980. This statute sets time limits for the latest date that a claim can be filed after injury has been done through medical treatment. A patient usually has a 3-year time period starting from the date that the medical condition caused by alleged negligence was revealed in which to initiate legal proceedings in a court of law. More time may be provided should the patient be mentally ill or a minor. If the patient is a child, the patient has to reach his 18th birthday before the 3-year timeframe begins. If the patient is mentally ill, he has to regain normal mental faculties before the 3-year timeframe can be imposed. Failure to either settle a claim or issue a summons in a civil court within the relevant three year period may mean that the opportunity to claim compensation is lost forever. It must however be noted that the court does have a rarely excersised discretion to extend time limits on these matters.

This website is for information only and does not contain medical or legal advice which should only be obtained from a qualified professional person. This website does not recommend any individual medical or legal professionals and does not refer matters on to any medical or legal professionals. This website is not intended to endorse any person, association or firm.