Breaking News
PIP Breast Implants Scandal: the legal duty of clinics
French company Poly Implant Prothese (PIP) was shut down and its products banned in 2010 after it was revealed to have been using industrial-grade silicone gel in its breast implants which it manufactured and supplied to hundreds of thousands of women. The company fraudulently sold these implants as containing medical-grade silicone. Until this time, clinics were unaware of the fraud. This contaminated gel caused abnormally high rupture rates. In December 2011 the French authorities advised 30,000 patients to have their PIP implants removed because of the increased risk of rupture.
Thousands of women in the UK are thought to have received these implants. However, unlike the French Authorities, the UK Government’s position is that the PIP implants pose no risk and should only be removed if a rupture is found. This contradicts the advice of the Royal College of Surgeons (RCS) which recently issued a statement calling for all women affected by the PIP breast implant scandal to have them removed upon request. In its statement, the RCS criticised private clinics by saying that they “have an ethical and moral duty of care to offer patients treatment without charge”.
However, not only do clinics have a moral duty towards patients who have had PIP implants, as Lord Howe, the Health Minister, points out, but clinics are also bound by a clear legal duty. It is irrelevant whether the clinic in question is personally at fault for the product failure. It has a statutory duty under the Supply of Goods and Services (SOGS) Act 1982 to ensure that products supplied were of satisfactory quality.
The PIP implants contained contaminated gel and so are of a substandard quality. Therefore, the patient has a clear-cut claim against the clinic for breach of contract under the SOGS Act. The seller of a substandard product is legally obliged to rectify the problem by either carrying out replacement surgery or by paying compensation so that it can be done elsewhere. Patients should also be entitled to compensation for the costs of the initial surgery and the pain and distress they suffered.
Woodfines’ litigation team is now advising on claims for compensation on behalf of women who have had PIP breast implants.
If you are affected by this issue, we advise you should take the following steps:
1. Establish whether you implants were made by PIP – you may need to obtain a copy of your medical notes in order to do this;
2. If your implants are made by PIP, seek legal advice without delay.
For further advice, please contact Emma Rooney at Woodfines on 01234 270 600 or email erooney@woodfines.co.uk.
New Burglary Sentencing Guidelines In Place
New sentencing guidelines came into force on 16th January 2012 in courts in England and Wales. Sentencing guidelines are used by Magistrate's and Judges when sentencing offenders.
From this date, offences will be considered more serious if, for example, a victim is at home during a burglary. The Chairman of the Sentencing Council, Lord Justice Hughes, said:
“Burglary is often not simply a crime against property but may have a serious impact on people whose houses or businesses are invaded. Those who burgle people's houses will normally go to prison."
Persons convicted of house burglary face up to six years in jail, five years in non-domestic cases such as burglary of a warehouse, and up to thirteen years if they possess weapons during the crime. The Courts from 16th January 2012 are told they must impose immediate custodial sentences in cases where the offender is armed.
The proposals have taken account of the views of the public and victims, whose opinion was that domestic burglary should generally result in a custodial sentence. The guidelines clearly put the impact on victims at the forefront.
The Council's guidelines do recognise that not everyone convicted of burglary will go to prison however. Examples of circumstances where a non-custodial community sentence might be appropriate could include those with no previous convictions who did not force entry and took goods of low value.
For further information, please contact Mike Hayward, Regulatory and Criminal Defence Solicitor, on 01908 202 150 or email at mhayward@woodfines.co.uk
Lawyers unfairly blamed for rise in hospital negligence claims
The Health Secretary has announced an extra provision of £185M until April for the NHS Litigation Authority to cover a shortfall in the fund which covers payments of compensation for hospital negligence cases.
It only took a short time before claimant “no win no fee” lawyers were being blamed for this rise by encouraging would be claimants to pursue claims they normally would not have considered.
People are perhaps more litigious in their outlook these days and more likely to seek recompense from doctors and hospitals. They are only able to do that because someone probably made a terrible mistake. Victims of hospital errors should be entitled to be compensated for what may cause them very serious and debilitating consequences and in some cases financial ruin.
It also fails to take account of the fact that most “no win no fee” lawyers will not consider taking on risky and doubtful cases, because the fact is that these cases take a great deal of time and expertise to pursue. If the case has no merit or it fails, the lawyer is paid absolutely nothing.
It is also a fact that the NHS is very slow to admit responsibility and settle cases at an early stage when it could. This undoubtedly causes the legal costs, even in straightforward cases, to be inflated.
Before the introduction of “no win no fee” (which was brought in by the Government, not by lawyers), often the only people who could afford to bring justifiable claims were either the very rich or the very poor who were entitled to legal aid. Interestingly the Government are at this moment in time also considering removing legal aid from clinical negligence cases.
It will be a backward step indeed if “no win no fee” arrangements are outlawed, as many injured patients will no longer be able to bring negligent hospitals to account.
For further information on medical negligence, please contact Keith Jones, Partner and Head of the Litigation department at kjones@woodfines.co.uk or telephone on 01234 270 600