Negligent NHS demand return of compensation payout
Thunder Lips
Posts: 1,660 Forum Member
✭✭✭
Story here
Thread title is woefully under informative, I know, but it is a difficult story to condense into so small a package!
Just wondering what people would think of this story. On the face of it it's very easy to condemn the NHS as money hungry and insensitive, but it was a payout intended to facilitate caring for the child and that is (sadly) no longer necessary. There's also the crucial fact that they're funded by us, the taxpayers, so there's an imperative for them to see that money goes on what it is meant for. Not asking for it back would see them £330,000 out of pocket in that regard.
Does anyone have a definite opinion one way or the other? Are they right to ask for the money back or should they just eat the loss and move on? I honestly don't know which way I'd go
Thread title is woefully under informative, I know, but it is a difficult story to condense into so small a package!
Just wondering what people would think of this story. On the face of it it's very easy to condemn the NHS as money hungry and insensitive, but it was a payout intended to facilitate caring for the child and that is (sadly) no longer necessary. There's also the crucial fact that they're funded by us, the taxpayers, so there's an imperative for them to see that money goes on what it is meant for. Not asking for it back would see them £330,000 out of pocket in that regard.
Does anyone have a definite opinion one way or the other? Are they right to ask for the money back or should they just eat the loss and move on? I honestly don't know which way I'd go
0
Comments
I suppose we'd need to see the small print, they must think they have a case or they wouldn't have embarked on a course to reclaim it.
From what I've read the final figure was going to agreed when the child reached 10 and this was a "pre-payment" to cover up to the age of 10 - unfortunately this child didn't reach the age of ten so the agreement is invalid
* ETA - unless, of course, the original agreement did have such a clause that covered this situation, and which has convienently been omitted from the article.
In this case, a significant part of the damages were paid to pay for the cost of caring for the child. As that cost no longer exists then there is no actionable claim for those portion of the damages.
Of course, despite the Daily Mail's claim of this being a "landmark case", it never actually went to court. For all we know, they may have decided the NHS never had to pay in the first place.
Therefore it's a question about what was agreed in the settlement, and without seeing that it's impossible to say who's in the (legal) right.
15% of the annual NHS budget is now spent on compensation claims. That just isn't sustainable.
[The mother's solicitor said]: 'A potential deadline comes around in July and we don't know what the situation is going to be.
This current dispute is over the settlement previously agreed out of court.
So far, from what I can see, nothing has actually gone in front of a court. The original case was settled and this current dispute (as you say) is ongoing.
Not sure the memory associations with her deceased child (her primary argument), constitute in themselves a sufficient reason for such generous taxpayers' largesse.
The bottom line is her material needs and circumstances have fundamentally changed.
But if the child had lived longer they would still be in massive debt and still unable to provide those drugs
Surely a bungalow would have been more suited to the child's needs anyway.
But it didn't, you can say the same about any costs related to a person living longer. The woman can sell the house and still be better off financially than she was before the birth.
The money being reclaimed was there to look after the child not to give her a meal ticket.
Its only like this because it was a out of court agreement, cases were the courts make the awards, there is never a claim back even if the person dies after a few years,
If they can, that seems a tad un-fair. If they can't, then surely it's all moot if the mother can't be legally compelled to return it.
It will be all down to the wording of the agreement, were court cases are not done on agreements, the courts order the award,