Health board fails in legal bid to have its personal injury settlement

Health board fails in legal bid to have its personal injury settlement

A court disregarded an application to revoke the clinical negligence claim against a Scottish health committee that is being petitioned by a patient for £1.5 million. A sheriff in all Scottish personal injury law court directed that while the trial was crucial and hard, those elements alone did not deserve a revoke from the authority law court to high-level law court. Following, surgery to cure constant agony on his back created by force on the nerve fibres in his spine.

Michael Cooker aged seventy-three had raised a harmful action against Rupert Ferdinand, and Dumfries and Galloway health committee. In April 2014, Michael had a laminectomy but claimed that he would have had an ideal outcome from that surgery if he could have had it earlier. He asserts that there was a hold up in his prognosis as the hospital had the chance to determine appropriately the treatment needed between Nov 2013 and May 2014.

Importance and complexity
The health committee (first defender), declared that it was understandable that the trial was of crucial to the claimant, but suggested that it is also vital to it as five staff members were condemned and their professional position has been put in question, something to be investigated by medical negligence solicitors.

Furthermore, the assertion included a considerable sum of money and there was worry about the likely effect of such a claim on public funds. The hospital also presented that the liability issue was complex because the guilt was directed at some different individuals over some medical experts. Meaning, there’ll need to be proof about what the responsibility of every one of these individuals was in applicable situations and whether those responsibilities had been breached.

The causation matter was also believable to be very complex which proceeded across to the question of quantification of harm. It was declared that the accumulative result of the issues relied on, as signifying complexity and importance made it suitable to revoke the trial to the court session, which had keen trials management instruments at its disposal to advance the case towards confirmation.

Revocation not suitable.
However, the health committee’s motion was opposed by the plaintiff on the basis that the revocation was not suitable. The plaintiff accepted that the trial was crucial to all parties involved and was complicated. However, none of these elements was enough in a degree to uphold a revocation. It was welcomed that the matter of professional position was vital. However, it touched in all professional laxity trials whether or not they were of magnitude value.

The plaintiff declared that whichever sheriff heard this trial, would need to assess the evidence from some medical witnesses regarding whether any of the physicians had been irresponsible and what the result would have been if that was proved.