Insurance firms with links to Scottish Government threaten legal challenge against Holyrood on asbestos claims reforms

Dean of Faculty Richard Keen QC to fight asbestos claims law. Insurance firms and lawyers who have strong financial relationships with the Government and the Scottish Parliament, have teamed up in an attempt to defeat through the courts, the Damages (Asbestos-Related Conditions) (Scotland) Bill, expected to be passed this week at Holyrood, which will allow victims of asbestos related illnesses to claim compensation from insurers for suffering such conditions as lung scars, which are an indication of exposure to asbestos.

The Edinburgh legal firm of Brodies has been called in by several insurance companies, identified in the Sunday Herald newspaper as AXA, Norwich Union, RSA and Zurich, to mount a judicial review legal challenge to the Damages (Asbestos-Related Conditions) (Scotland) Bill, which goes through Parliament this week. The insurers legal position is that the legislation proposed will allow people to claim compensation who suffer from ailments associated with asbestos exposure, which the insurers currently don't classify as harmful.

Richard Keen as you all know, appeared in the media only a few weeks ago demanding that class actions be allowed in Scotland against banks, however I take it that class actions for the victims of asbestos claims are not included in his thinking at the time.

I wrote a previous article on the Parliamentary hearings, which saw lawyers representing the legal profession attempt to argue that ‘pleural plaques’, a condition which indicates exposure to asbestos, was “good for you”, here : Insurance lawyers argue against laws to help asbestos victims asserting part of their suffering 'is a good thing'

Law Society’s insurers threaten Parliament. It is of note that two of those Insurers - Royal Sun Alliance (RSA) and Norwich Union are backers of the Law Society of Scotland's infamously corrupt Master Insurance Policy, which insures every member of the Scots legal profession including the dean of faculty himself, all other advocates, and even the legal firm of Brodies, who themselves have been caught up in claims made by clients against their negligence cover.

You can read more about the Law Society’s Master Insurance Policy here : The Master Insurance Policy, Marsh UK & corrupt practices by insurers of the Scots legal profession

A legal insider who was approached for comment said "It is true that all advocates are part of the Master Policy, although it is generally left to individual advocates to arrange their own Indemnity Insurance cover, albeit through the same firm. It is fair to say the dean of faculty is probably insured by the same insurers now challenging the asbestos claims legislation".

On being asked for his thoughts on revelations the same insurers deal with Government, he said : "It is my understanding that Marsh also arrange insurance cover for many public institutions, including Government. This insurance cover will also be underwritten by many of the same insurance firms who are affected in the asbestos damages bill now before Holyrood."

Scots Govt pays millions to insurers now threatening legal action. The Master Policy, run by Marsh UK, a subsidiary of the US Insurance giant Marsh, which itself has been caught up in insurance fixing scandals, amazingly shares among its clients, the current SNP controlled Scottish Government, which pays out millions of pounds of public money in Professional Indemnity Insurance cover for all Government Departments, many public bodies & quangos, and also the Justice Department's 'goliath' Government Legal Service for Scotland, staffed by 175 seriously well paid lawyers who under Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, also get their huge insurance subscriptions paid as expenses perks by the taxpayer.

You can read more about the Government Legal Service for Scotland (GLSS) and exactly what contribution they make to us here : Scottish Government's £10m in-house lawyers make their mark against legal reforms & public access to justice

Scottish Parliament also has links to insurers. Even the Scottish Parliament itself is not immune from associations with the insurers who are now challenging the legislation to help asbestos victims. The 13 lawyers assigned to the Scottish Parliament from the GLSS are also themselves insured by the same insurers who are threatening legal action against Holyrood, and several departments of the Scottish Parliament also allegedly rely on insurance services provided by Marsh UK and the RSA for their own indemnity insurance !

An official from a consumer organisation today who declined to be named said : "One could speculate a great deal on whether such involvement at all levels of government by a single insurance firm, or cartel of insurers, may give rise to the conclusion by some there is an inherent conflict of interest going on, which may lead to ineffective or badly worded legislation being passed, or a general lack of will on the part of politicians to do the right thing for consumers, on the basis they don't want to upset their services provided by the Insurance community."

So, we have a situation where the same insurers who are now threatening legal action against Parliament to prevent asbestos sufferers receiving compensation, are at the same time, receiving millions of pounds in taxpayers money from Government, the Parliament, and many public authorities in Scotland, to ensure protection against financial claims for wrongdoing or negligence in public office. Is that right ? Is this an acceptable state of affairs ?

Is it ethical to pay millions of pounds of taxpayers money to the same insurers who are fighting proposals of reforms in the legislative process which are designed to make life better for those who are suffering fatal illness ?

Let us remind ourselves of the arguments put forward by the insurance companies lawyers in Parliament against asbestos sufferers :

Scots lawyers argue ‘asbestos related illnesses are good for you’ :

From the Sunday Herald :

Insurance giants to challenge new asbestos legislation

Firms will fight move to allow Scottish workers to claim £50m in damages

By Tom Gordon, Scottish Political Editor

BRITAIN'S BIGGEST insurers are planning an unprecedented legal challenge to a new law which would allow Scots workers to sue for asbestos exposure.

Four firms are preparing to seek a judicial review of the legislation, which is expected to pass its final stage at Holyrood on Wednesday with over-whelming cross-party support.

The law is designed to give workers the right to seek compensation for scars on the lung known as pleural plaques, which indicate exposure to asbestos, but which are themselves harmless.

It is understood the Edinburgh law firm Brodies is co-ordinating the judicial review on behalf of AXA, Norwich Union, RSA and Zurich.

The lawyers have already engaged two of Scotland's most formidable advocates to attempt to overturn the law at the Court of Session. Leading will be Richard Keen QC, dean of the Faculty of Advocates, and he will be assisted by Jane Munro.

If successful, the challenge would humiliate the government and dash the hopes of thousands of people negligently exposed to asbestos.

While the average payout would be around £8000 per person, legal costs would be twice as much again, and ministers estimate the total cost to private companies will top £50 million.

Frank Maguire of Thompsons Solicitors, which represents many Scots asbestos victims, said the court would be loath to reverse the will of parliament, especially as it was a clarification of the existing law.

He said: "We have researched all the angles and we are pretty confident that this will be overcome. We believe this judicial review will be defeated."

A spokesman for justice secretary Kenny MacAskill said: "We are entirely confident that this bill is within the legislative powers of the Scottish parliament. There is a moral imperative here that the SNP government in Scotland is acting on, even if Westminster is not. The House of Lords judgment means that people diagnosed with pleural plaques would have to live with the worry of possible future ill health for the rest of their lives, with no recourse to claim damages."

The judicial review will not surprise the Scottish government. During a consultation last year, insurance firms warned the proposed legislation was "wholly wrong", would open the flood-gates to similar dubious damage claims, and ought to be dropped. Some warned of potential legal challenges.

One of the main complaints against the legislation was that it would allow people to sue for a condition that causes them no physical harm: pleural plaques are symptomless, and do not develop into fatal mesothelioma. Allowing people to claim damages for something that hasn't damaged them is perverse and up-ends centuries of case law, critics argued.

But advocates of compensation said people who discover they have plaques suffer psychological stress.

In October 2007, after more than 20 years of people being able to claim compensation for plaques, the House of Lords ruled plaques were too trivial to merit damages. The Westminster government has so far accepted the ruling, but in Scotland asbestos victims persuaded the Scottish government to legislate to restore the "status quo ante", and let workers pursue damages for the condition once more. Wednesday's third-stage vote will see the culmination of that two-year campaign.

Last week, ministers were forced to issue a revised financial memorandum to the Damages (Asbestos-Related Conditions) (Scotland) Bill, after realising it had underestimated the likely cost of compensation.

Settling the backlog against private firms is expected to cost £11.8m to £20m, followed by annual costs of £3.7m-£7m.

Councils also face bills of around £850,000 to settle existing cases, and annual bills of around £500,000.

The Ministry of Defence, which runs the Rosyth Naval Dockyard, and the UK Department for Business, which inherited liability for defunct shipyards, face total costs of around £7m, a bill the UK government could choose to hand back to Edinburgh.

Christine O'Neill, of Brodies, added: "We have been instructed by a number of insurers to look at a challenge."

Scottish blood infections inquiry will be 'another whitewash' as documents expected to be withheld to cover up public liability

Prospects for an effective open inquiry into the use of contaminated blood products in Scotland, which has left thousands of victims suffering from fatal infections such as Hepatitis C, do not look good as the results of the private inquiry held in England were announced today, revealing the fact that several witnesses refused to attend, and that documentary evidence was withheld by the NHS once again.

You can read the report from the English inquiry, Chaired by the Rt Hon. Lord Archer of Sandwell QC, here : The Archer Inquiry

The Scottish inquiry into contaminated blood products, announced nearly a year ago by the Scottish Government, has yet to begin work, and while Nicola Sturgeon, the Cabinet Secretary for Health promised on BBC Radio today : "Not only are we promising a full and open inquiry but we will deliver a full and open inquiry." it turns out the Scottish Inquiry cannot compel witnesses from the rest of the UK to attend, despite assurances from Westminster there will be full cooperation.

While Ms Sturgeon's claims may raise the expectation of some, the fact is that while there are elements of the Scots legal profession who are representing victims of the tainted blood products scandal, victims who are most certainly owed an explanation of why they received tainted blood products from the NHS, and are given a measure of justice so far denied to them, there are other, more powerful elements of the Scots legal profession in the form of the Government Legal Service for Scotland (GLSS), who will be ensuring that many decisions undertaken within NHS Trusts in Scotland, which resulted in the use of the tainted blood products, will never come to light.

In-house legal team little more than ‘bouncers’. The GLSS is the Scottish Government's in-house legal team, which represents virtually all aspects of legal business carried out by Government, the Scottish Parliament, and most public services in Scotland, and lawyers from the GLSS have been known to have taken part in many cases over the years, both civil and criminal, where decisions were obviously taken by Ministers on GLSS advice to withhold, lose, & possibly even destroy evidence from inquiries & investigations which could have compromised the Government's line on what really happened in a particular instance.

It seems to be the case there are still a few solicitors at the GLSS who were at their posts during the use of the tainted blood products by NHS Trusts in Scotland and some are sceptical those same solicitors will reverse or even reveal any advice given at the time which seems to have allowed some involved in the scandal to destroy or ‘lose’ documents relating to the use of knowingly tainted blood products.

One legal insider speculated today "This is all about delaying any admission of negligence and any compensation to the victims.Its little more than playing for time in the usual way, and the current Scottish Government are no better on that score than those who were in office when it all happened".

Lets hope Lord Penrose feels otherwise when his inquiry eventually starts ….

More from BBC News :

Concern over Scots Hep C inquiry

By Eleanor Bradford
Health correspondent, BBC Scotland

Scots who were infected with deadly viruses through contaminated blood are calling for a Scottish inquiry to have more powers.

Lawyers acting for hundreds of victims said an independent inquiry, set up by the Scottish Government, would only have the power to call witnesses in Scotland.

As the blood supply was contaminated before devolution, many key decision makers were in Westminster.

More than 4,000 people were infected with Hepatitis C, and in some cases HIV, through blood transfusions or haemophilia treatments before effective screening of blood donations was introduced in the early 1990s.

A separate private inquiry into contaminated blood supplies, headed by Lord Archer of Sandwell, is due to announce its findings.

Although it interviewed Scottish victims and witnesses, it had no powers to force witnesses from the Department of Health to attend because it was not set up by the UK government. Several witnesses refused to attend and documents were withheld.

Lawyer for Scottish victims, Frank McGuire, said: "All these events took place before devolution. The Department of Health had an important role to play in it, and we can't get that evidence."

High Court Judge Lord Penrose has been appointed to lead the Scottish inquiry. He has not yet set a date for the start of his investigations.

“We're not really getting to the heart of the matter. It's another whitewash”
Frank McGuire (Lawyer for Scottish victims)

Health Secretary Nicola Sturgeon told BBC Radio's Good Morning Scotland programme the UK Government's Department of Health had given assurances it would co-operate fully with the inquiry.

"The inquiry has the maximum powers we are able to give it under the 2005 Inquiries Act," she said.

"It is the case that there may be issues of access to evidence or documents that are in possession of the UK Government but under the 2005 Inquiries Act no Scottish inquiry can compel that evidence.

"But we have been given assurances by the Department of Health that they will co-operate fully with Lord Penrose's inquiry."

She added: "Not only are we promising a full and open inquiry but we will deliver a full and open inquiry.

"I believe this inquiry is capable of giving those that have campaigned on the issue the answers they are looking for."

One of the victims, musician Andy Gunn, from Inverness, said he expected the Department of Health to withhold evidence from a Scottish inquiry, as it did in the Archer inquiry.

"Whilst we're grateful that they're holding an inquiry it's no use really because they're stopping short and withholding crucial documents and crucial witnesses," he said.

"We're not really getting to the heart of the matter. It's another whitewash."

Lawyer who took on Law Society for clients ended up as dishonest as those he challenged

One of the more difficult articles for me to write, as this relates to a lawyer, Michael G Robson, who handled the case of the death of my mother at Borders General Hospital, and lied about what he was doing with regard to pursuing a medical negligence action against the Hospital.

Michael G Robson, formerly of Robsons WS, Ratho, had many a famous client who had problems with the legal profession. Iain McIntyre for one, was a client of Mr Robson, who tried to sue his lawyers for negligence, but was blocked from doing so by the then Secretary of the Law Society, Kenneth Pritchard, and his successor, Douglas Mill.

I was but another of those clients Mr Robson happily took on, with an assurance that work would be undertaken, and cases brought to court, among them, an attempt to do something about crooked accountant Norman Howitt & ICAS, an action for Judicial Review against the Law Society of Scotland in their handling of the Penman complaint & their treatment of further complaints filed against other legal firms, and of course, the case of the death of my mother at Borders General Hospital, from medical negligence.

In the end, Mr Robson did nothing on any of my cases, nor it seems did he do much, if anything for any of his other client, and ended up before the Law Society over several complaints from clients, including some from myself, over lack of action on cases and failure to correspond or take instructions.

It took the Law Society long enough to do something about it ... they wrote some 90 or so letters to him at his Ratho office, a situation which went on for almost a year. Odd, perhaps, that no one from the Law Society thought to drive a few miles to his office and see what was going on. Law Society officials were however, content to play the situation out for as long as possible, so all of Mr Robson's clients cases might just fall into time bar, thus preventing anyone from being able to claim compensation against the solicitors negligence insurance.

The Law Society, very craftily handled the client complaints against Mr Robson, finding in the main for a poor standard of service & conduct, and recommending prosecution before the Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal for a number of those 'offences'. However due to the possibility of clients proceeding with negligence claims against Mr Robson for his conduct and citing the Law Society investigation and findings, the Law Society made & pressed charges of their own rather than refer too much to the way Mr Robson had treated his clients, in an effort to stall any negligence claims against Mr Robson which would ultimately have to be paid from the Master Insurance Policy - the solicitors professional indemnity insurance for negligence run by the Law Society of Scotland and Marsh UK - which has seen it's own share of corruption allegations.

Mr Robson was duly found guilty and the rest was covered in the media. Mr Robson however, did challenge the SSDT, which was reflected in newspaper reports, and a case which goes on yet to this day, delayed on many occasions of being off to tennis matches or meetings .. how the Court and it's judges sat back and allowed that is anyone's guess, but a good indicator came from a source at the Law Society of Scotland, who claims the intention of the delays is to make my case and any other claim against Mr Robson fall into time bar - the usual practice from the legal profession then.

Such was the complication of the case, and the worry of the Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman there may be a 'conflict of interest', my request for an investigation into the way the Law Society dealt with the Robson case was passed to the English Legal Services Ombudsman, who have had to sit on the sidelines and await a ruling from the court before taking up their investigation over 3 years since they were contacted to do it.

The Law Society of Scotland's Director of Regulation, Mr Philip Yelland, known to many clients who complain to the Law Society, wrote recently to the Legal Services Ombudsman's office in England, with as useless an explanation as ever, claiming the Law Society was 'powerless' to do anything while Mr Robson pursued the appeal against the Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal.

In reality, Mr Yelland and his colleagues at the Law Society of Scotland, have been only too happy to see the case drag on, and myself be constantly denied legal representation, to delay and destroy any chance of a negligence claim against Mr Robson being raised - the same trick they play on anyone else who tries to claim against a crooked lawyer ...

Following is a list of the Court appearances of Mr Robson, with excuse after excuse .. which usually revolved around playing tennis ... some of the quotes below ...

"Mr Robson was unable to attend as his employers were contracted to provide his services as a LTA tennis coach to West Lothian Council."

"Mr Robson had a tennis training course in the North of England from 15th - 17th May."

"Mr Robson was unable to attend this hearing as he was attending a tennis leaders course. It was the first course to be run in Scotland and he had been committed since June."

What where the Judges thinking of allowing Mr Robson to treat the court like that, amid the ruin and harm he had caused his clients ?.

The Law Society of Scotland's 'prosecuting fiscal' in this case is PA Reid, 'Solicitor Advocate' of Messrs Fleming & Reid, 180 Hope Street, Glasgow - perhaps known to others who have made complaints against crooked lawyers and seen a 'result' in any 'prosecution' before the Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal ...

Being slightly fed up with the way I was being treated, by the Law Society, the Court of Session, Mr Robson et all, I let slip the information, and at the weekend, the Sunday Mail featured the story.

Surely all this is a good example of why lawyers cannot be allowed to regulate themselves. Only fully independent regulation of the legal profession, will bring a measure of accountability & transparency to the way lawyers handle cases for their clients, and how complaints are handled when inevitably it seems, lawyers undertake very poor legal service.

Shamed Lawyer In Tennis Racket

Oct 21 2007 By Russell Findlay

Exclusive Brief Accused Of Stringing Along Court With Excuses

A SHAMED lawyer missed a string of dates to defend himself against complaints - because he was too busy playing tennis.

Michael Robson gave the crazy excuse to Scotland's highest court after appealing against a punishment for ignoring clients' wishes.

He was disciplined by legal watchdogs in 2005 but the ruling remained secret because he appealed to the Court of Session.

Robson, 55, missed a court date in April last year as he was working as a Lawn Tennis Association coach.

In May 2006, he went on a two-day tennis training course in England and that September he was at a tennis "leaders course".

Client Peter Cherbi plans to sue Robson for failing to act in a medical negligence claim over the death of his mother in 2000.

Mr Cherbi claims Robson's delays may be a tactic to avoid a court case.

He said: "The deadline for my action against Mr Robson is next year when it will become time barred.

"I suspect he is cynically playing for time. It is extraordinary judges should accept a tennis match is more important than a court appearance." In 2001 the Scottish Solicitors' Discipline Tribunal found Robson had ignored 50 letters from the Law Society, criticised his "cavalier attitude" and ordered that he work under supervision for three years.

In 2002 he was struck off but that was reduced to five-years of supervision on appeal.

He is banned from working as a solicitor as result of the 2005 ruling.

When we called Robson, of Ratho, Edinburgh, he said he would phone back but failed to do so.

Medical negligence claims in Scotland obstructed by insurers & lawyers for their own benefit

More than 2000 claims of negligence against NHS Hospitals in Scotland have been filed by patients in the past five years" - writes Judith Duffy of The Sunday Herald"

Yes, I know ... my negligence case was one of them - and you can read about it here : http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2006/03/how-scottish-lawyers-and-law-society.html

However, reading further intp the article, it is revealed that fewer than one in five of the cases have actually been settled - the remainder of them either being obstruced, delayed, or abandoned - because of the impossibility of progressing such an action - particularly in Scotland.

When I hired a Scottish lawyer - Mr Michael Robson, of Robsons WS, Ratho (Near Edinburgh) to take on a case of negligence against Borders General Hospital, over the death of my mum and the way they treated her, he gave me the usual line that yes, it was negligence, horrific, etc .. what happened (the same line lawyers give to many clients who have such cases) ... but as you all know from newspaper & media reports - Robson did nothing - actually - worse - he pretended to be doing something on the cases, when he was not - making me sign legal aid papers, telling me he had written letters seeking medical records, etc ... but no, nothing. He did nothing. Robson, although a laywer, was a con artist.

After I discovered Robson had been messing me about, I put in a complaint to the Law Society of Scotland against him - and guess what ?

They struck him off for ignoring some 50 letters from the Law Society itself asking for reports on his work - but the Law Society and the Complaints Committee fiddled the complaint so that I would get no compensation for what he did to me, and how he ruined my case.

To try and clear up the mess of what Robson did - I asked David Reid - another lawyer I had worked with in the past, to take the case on.
Guess what he did ? Yes, that`s right - Nothing.

Actually, David Reid did just what Robson did. He pretended he was doing work on my case - sent me legal aid claim forms to sign, said he was sending letters seeking recovery of medical records, etc ... but it was all a lie. Mr David Reid - of Messrs Morrisons Solicitors, then of Campbell Smith WS, Edinburgh - was just a liar.

What did David Reid do when I discovered what he had been up to ?

He took a stress break - That is - He claimed he was suffering from stress and left his job - and all his clients, including me, in the lurch.

What did Campbell Smith Solicitors do ? They dumped me as a client - all so easily done, it looked like part of a wider plan, which was correct.

I was of course, forced to file a complaint against Mr Reid`s actions with the Law Society of Scotland - but they inevitably cleared him of any blame, despite me submitting a full file of letter and email correspondence, showing that Reid was a consistent liar and a fraud, faking up legal aid applications, deceiving me as to what he was doing, etc .. .

Why did the Law Society of Scotland fiddle the complaint and make sure I couldn`t do anything about David Reid ?

Well, the Law Society knew I couldn`t get any lawyer to take a case on against him - and the Society has a great way of making sure that happens - by ordering all their members not to represent anyone who is seen as trouble to the legal profession - and that certainly includes me, Peter Cherbi.

What is David Reid doing now ? He is a Law Accountant. That means - he must be a member of The Society of Law Accountants in Scotland - http://www.solas.co.uk/

So, David Reid - a solicitor of many years, who lied his way out of dealing with client cases and is really, just a thief and a crook with no shame at all, is now `auditing` legal firms bills to clients for work done.

I definitely wouldn`t trust Mr David Reid - a Scottish lawyer who lied and deceived clients on work in their cases, to audit client accounts, would you ?

That`s like trusting a known burglar with the keys to your house. Would anyone actually do that ? Probably not.

So you better be asking who is the Law Accountant who is auditing your legal bills ... is it a crooked Scottish lawyer such as David Reid ?

Another problem with my negligence action against the Borders General Hospital over what happened to my mum, was that I needed legal aid to proceed it - and as the article today in the Sunday Herald shows - legal aid is very hard to get in such cases - because, at least from my experience, the Scottish Legal Aid Board - are probably just as or even more crooked as the people the action was leveled against. Make enemies at SLAB, and the legal profession - and they make sure your legal aid is terminated - no messin !

Balfour & Manson Solicitors, Edinburgh, crop up again in the article - to chastise the returns of legal aid payments in such medical negligence cases - but my own experience of Balfour & Manson is well known in the legal profession - They actually took on my case after David Reid messed it up for the second time, but they wrote a report to clear Reid of any blame - amazingly it seems, on orders of the Law Society of Scotland, who asked to be kept informed of all my correspondence to them. So, Law Society wins again ... and Balfour & Manson prove they are just another firm of crooked lawyers - which you should be wary of.

Something I discovered along the way when I was trying to sue the negligent Borders General Hospital, was that the insurers who provide Professional Negligence Insurance to the legal profession - also provide negligence cover to the medical profession.

That`s a bit of a conflict of interest, isnt`t it ? Well - yes and no.

It`s just good business on the part of the insurers - because they are allowed to do this of course, and they can make sure the lawyers who take the case on, mess the client about for years, so the insurance never needs to pay out - and that is one of the main reasons why a lot of medical negligence cases actually fail in Scotland.

And, before you go thinking - ah - the Procurator Fiscals who conduct Fatal Accident Inquiries in some complaints against doctors &' hospitals are independent ...

Think again - Fiscals are lawyers, with practising certificates (many are rejects from private practice, some with poor client / regulatory histories), but they are still members of the Law Society of Scotland and are therefore required to pay into the Master Insurance Policy .. which is run by the same people who insure the medical profession for negligence ...

Pity that some people don`t dig deep enough to find that one out ? ... but even if it is exposed as the big con that it is - who would do something about it ?

The same insurance firm has deals insuring manh other public services against negligence and other claims from the public or even their own workers ... so .. nothing would be done really .. but it should make a few good headlines I suppose.

At the end of the article - it is reported that the Scottish Executive claimed said an expert group had concluded that it “offered little value for money and ignored accountability and quality of care”... and then they made sure that Scotland would be excluded from the "Redress Bill" because "due to differences in levels of compensation and legal fees paid in Scotland, where, historically, the number of claims made and amount paid out was lower than the rest of the UK" - but that`s because the cases are being fiddled by lawyers, the medical profession, the insurers - who are all lobbying against change for the benefit of the public in medical negligence claims and of course, don`t forget the Legal Aid Board - who are just as ambivolent to such cases as ever.

Guess who the expert group were ? - full of lawyers, medical professionals insured by the same firms who insure the lawyers ... what a gang ! - making sure that everything goes their own way .. and what does the Scottish Executive do ? they go right along with it.

Read on for the article, from the Sunday Herald - defintely Scotlands finest Sunday Newspaper. at :
http://www.sundayherald.com/56408 (Herald link now out of date)

Legal red-tape deters medical blunder cases
By Judith Duffy, Health Correspondent

MORE than 2000 claims of negligence against NHS hospitals in Scotland have been filed by patients in the past five years.

New figures have also revealed that fewer than one in five of the cases of alleged medical blunders have been settled, with the remainder withdrawn, abandoned due to costs or still in progress.

The highest number of claims during the period was at Ninewells Hospital in Dundee, with 123 cases filed against it. The Western Infirmary and Gartnavel General in Glasgow together settled most cases, with a total of 27.

Despite fears of a growing “compensation culture”, the statistics show the number of claims filed has fallen by almost 20%, from 445 in 2001 to 361 last year. But campaigners say that difficulties in getting legal aid and a lack of specialist solicitors is hindering many victims north of the Border from seeking compensation. Peter Walsh, chief executive of Action Against Medical Accidents (AvMA) a charity which helps patients seek redress against negligent doctors, said he was “not surprised” by the drop in cases.

He said: “I suspect it has nothing to do with improving standards, but has more to do with severe difficulties in accessing justice in medical negligence in Scotland.

“Medical negligence is a difficult enough thing to get to the bottom of in any part of the UK, but it is made far worse in Scotland by the fact legal aid is so difficult to come by. Consequently the number of specialist solicitors able to give assistance is very small indeed.”

That view was backed by Fred Tyler, a solicitor with Balfour & Manson, a firm which specialises in medical negligence. He said: “If you win, you recover costs from the other side and the recovery may be quite reasonable, but if you have to claim against the legal aid board in the event of failure then the return is very poor and it really is not profitable.”

Another problem, according to Tyler, is that many patients do not qualify for legal aid, which is often needed to pay for investigations that would provide medical evidence to support their claim .

In England and Wales, a system which would allow minor claims to be settled out of court is being introduced. It is hoped the NHS Redress Bill will speed up the process and free up cash for the NHS to spend on patients, not lawyers.

But others advocate a “no-fault” compensation scheme, similar to those operated in Sweden and New Zealand.

The SNP, which obtained the new statistics , has called for such a system to be introduced. The party says nearly half of cases in Scotland take more than three years to settle, leaving the NHS with an annual legal bill of nearly ￡2 million.

SNP MSP Shona Robison said: “We believe a no-fault system will be fairer, quicker and make better use of taxpayers’ money. No-fault is not just about compensation, it’s about learning from errors so we can build a stronger NHS.”

Despite the British Medical Association supporting a no-fault scheme , a Scottish Executive spokeswoman said an expert group had concluded that it “offered little value for money and ignored accountability and quality of care”. It had been agreed that Scotland would not be covered by the Redress Bill due to differences in levels of compensation and legal fees paid in Scotland, where, historically, the number of claims made and amount paid out was lower than the rest of the UK, she added.

NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, which runs the Western and Gartnavel, said the number of claims made had “not changed significantly” in recent years.

How Scottish Lawyers and the Law Society of Scotland ruined a medical negligence action involving my mother`s death

Since I started this blog, I have received some good posts, and also some great emails from people sending me stuff about their cases, and, leaks of info on those I'm up against ... when I finish reading the stuff, there will be some good stories in the media soon :)

Certainly, however there was one event, which outshone everything that happened to me, and that was the death of my mum ... so here goes today's article ....

Undoubtably the most tragic event in my life to date, was when my mum took a stroke right in front of me and then died, 8 hours later in the Borders General Hospital at Huntlyburn, Melrose, in the Scottish Borders.

What's unusual about that ? well ... it's unusual to have all the equipment fail at the hospital when the patient is admitted .. and its damn unusal for family to have to plead for, and participate in medical treatment, to try and save the patient .. (well it was then ... but many have had to do the same as me since) ... and yes, the article is about me .. and how I had to do a brain scan on my mum, because all the staff were off doing their own stuff, or simply didn't exist, because of cutbacks so that all the admins and pencil pushers can get their fat wage cheques ... happens to many, not just me .. but here is the story for you to read.

The Daily Record article pretty much says it all ... if you are an old person - better not hope for any decent treatment in the Scottish Borders ... and there have been plenty similar cases to what happened to my mum since she died ... seems the medical lot in the Region never learn - or just can't be bothered.

That was that then ... after all the messing about at the BGH and failure to do anything, my mum was dead .. what a balls up that was, she should have been transferred immediately to Edinburgh to a medical unit which would have given her at least a chance, but no way ... they have to save money in the Borders, you know ... and the arguement I had with the Doctor (Broadhurst) to try and get a scan for my mum was about the lousiest conversation I have ever had with another person. If it hadn't been for the foreign Doctor and his test of my mum's reflexes with a set of car keys, which at least showed my mum was responding, there would have been no scan at all, and if I hadn't have actually helped in the scanning theatre, again, the scan wouldn't have taken place, because there wasn't enouogh staff to even do the scan.. but in any case, it was too late .. older stroke victim patients aren't meant to be revived - they are meant to die .. and save resources so that NHS Trusts can waste money on more officials and paperclips .. which they are great at doing in the Scottish Borders ... I was later told there was a chance she could have been saved, but alas, with all the delays, her poor treatment, and the lack of a scan, that was it .. but from what I saw, there wasn't much effort to do anything ... but there was a hell of a lot of effort put into denying what happened later, and actually targetting me to shut me up.

After the story broke of course, about me being in the scanning theatre (actually, this is illegal) ... the Hospital & Trust staff began a cover up to deny it .. although they eventually had to admit it ... The Procurator Fiscal at Selkirk, who was in charge of the case, did nothing, even though a lawyer who joined the case said there should have probably been charges of negligence against the Trust for my presence in the radiation theatre .. as well as an FAI to establish the real truth of what happened .. but.. nothing .. and to shut me up, that Fiscal sent the cops to threaten me to keep quiet too ... she then got a promotion to a Unit which specialises in seizing the profits of drug barons, etc ... probably her reward for beating cases into the ground and keeping cover ups intact ... of which there have been a few more at the Borders General Hospital since the death of my mum.

I later found out that there had been nothing of an investigation conducted by the Fiscals office - no staff at the Hospital were interviewed .. and to make matters worse, they brought in the oh-so-wonderful Professor Tony Bussutil to do an post mortem of my mum, some 4 months after she was buried - just to shut the arguement up about what happened at the Hospital ... but all Bussutil did was read the Doctors account of what happened, and sided with them of course .. and when we get someone as self-glorified as Prof. Bussutil in on a case - a man of course who can do no wrong in the eyes of those who use his opinions to silence critics ... that does tend to close down the arguement pretty quickly .. but as I found out, the great Professor wasn't infallible ... an ex-Fiscal had phoned me and told me all about some of the great failures of the great Prof in the witness stand ... and after hearing some of the stuff .. I don't really see what is so great and good about Prof Bussutil.

I wonder which company does his professional indemity insurance .. the same one as the lawyers or the Scottish Executive, or of the medical fraternity I was up against ??

interesting stuff ... indeed, I learned a lot about these so called "expert witnesses" which lawyers use against each others clients in cases ... for a start, most of them know each other, most of them go to the same steak & wine dinners, most of them honour each other with prizes & medals, and most of them are insured by the same indemnity insurance schemes and enjoy special financial benefits for their work - some, getting bonuses when the relevant case they testify in goes against some poor member of the public .... oh the mess I could cause with what documents I am reading just now.

What can I say ... you have seen in papers on this site, that some people tried to rob my mum too, and I had to battle to sort that one out for her ... and throughout all the battles I had with the lawyers, my mum told me not to give up on it .. but sadly, I lost her in the process.

Needless to say, there was a "party atmosphere" at the Law Society of Scotland's offices in Edinburgh at what happened to me, I was told. One of the big-shots at the Law Society hoped I would be so depressed by this, I would kill myself. He was quite adamant I would do it, and he actually invited someone up from the Borders for drinks to discuss the effect of getting rid of me from the public campaign against the Law Society and crooked lawyers ... nice people, the Law Society lot ... take advantage of any situation they can, particularly if it's a nasty one, and make it worse to benefit their position ... A journalist still at one of the newspapers I had dealt with, told me of a deleriously happy idiot at the Law Society, who was so full of joy at what happened to me, he compared his state to that of a clubber high on ecstasy ... nice guy, huh ? ... well, that is the type of people we have in the Scottish legal profession ... that's the reason they all have big houses, fancy cars, etc .. while they plunder clients at-will and get in on any action they can to stuff their own pockets and those of their colleagues.

So great was the 'glee' of the legal profession at the prospect of my [hoped] imminent suicide, even the local faculty of lawyers in the Borders got in on the act, spreading plenty of bile about me (particularly one little nasty crooked lawyer from Kelso who had a go at me a few years later) and they had a damn good laugh at what happened to my mum - what a bunch of miserable evil sods they were, all hoping I would top myself, ... but too bad, I am still here ... and lads, you can thank yourselves and Drew Penman for all the bad publicity you guys in the legal profession get these days.

The Scottish Executive also joined the fray of course, because I appeared on BBC & ITV to speak about what happened, and since I was upsetting the apple cart of government [fake] statistics on survival rates and stroke procedures in the NHS, etc ... they had to have a go at shutting me up too.

I had of course, written to the Scottish Health Minister over what happened, and also to the First Minister, Donald Dewar, to demand a proper inquiry into the circumstances of my mum's treatment in the Borders General Hospital, but Mr Dewar, who, by this time, had developed such a personal dislike for me because of my regular appearances in the media against crooked lawyers (Mr Dewar had been made a life member of the Law Society of Scotland for his support of the legal profession) .. it was alleged he signed a memo saying 'no further action' on my case, and the Health Minister at the time - Susan Deacon, simply didn't want to know about my case - and sent the usual brush off letters telling me to go jump in the river, so to speak.

Of course .. as you all know, Mr Dewar a few weeks later, tripped over a stair, took a massive stroke, and died within a few hours too.

So, your thinking that anything actually happened with regard to the death of my mum and the hospital learned any lessons ?? no way ... the Borders General Hospital still remains a dangerous place .. and of course the doctors there protect their colleagues when there's any question of wrongdoing or lack of care ... and of course, the Boss of the Hospital at the time, John Glennie, actually got promoted to be the head of the Health Trust, and Dr Gaddie, who was bitterly hostile to me in my meeting between Glennie, himself, and the 2 Health Council workers I had with me as witnesses, remains at the Hospital to keep things under wraps when patient care goes wrong ... .. but that really sums up the Scottish Borders and who runs things there.

Wondering how I survived this and didn't top myself ? well despite those at the Law Society, a bent accountant in the Borders, and some sickos in the town where I lived, I got through it.. thanks to my aunt & uncle in Jedburgh, and some damn good friends around the world who stood by me and supported me through this time. However, I never had any visits from any medical staff or anyone like that - they were all hoping I would just drop dead or something.

Scars are still there though, and my thoughts against those who wished me dead are ... unprintable.

So, my message to you all - if you have a loved one rushed into a Hospital .. make sure that you know everything what's going on, and don't let the doctors shunt them into a side room to die when they might have a chance.

More to come on what happened in this case, when you will see that the actual lawyers on the case let me down too .. and were struck off for lying to me a couple of years later.

Here's an article on a recent case of patient death at the Borders General Hospital ... after reading it, you can see they never learn .... but they still cover up for their colleagues ! ...

http://www.borderstoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=968&ArticleID=1017306

Surgeons move to defend colleague

TWELVE of the most senior surgeons and doctors at Borders General Hospital have banded together to defend the reputation of a colleague after a recent fatal accident inquiry into the death of a woman patient, writes Mark Entwistle.

The physicians have also slammed national and local press coverage of the case, claiming it was unfair and "one-sided reporting", and they say both the reputation and morale of the hospital surgical unit have suffered as a result.

And bosses at NHS Borders say that not only were they made aware in advance of the plan to send out the letter to every GP in the Borders and the press, but that they also support the sentiments contained in it.

Last week, TheSouthern reported the official findings of Sheriff James Gilmour into the circumstances surrounding the death of 61-year-old great-grandmother Margaret Reid, of Ancrum.

Mrs Reid failed to recover from surgery carried out two years ago at the BGH by the hospital's head of surgery, John O'Neill.

During the operation the wrong bile duct was mistakenly cut. Doctors later found that the artery to her liver had ruptured and Mrs Reid died five months later in Edinburgh Royal Infirmary.

The inquiry was carried out in October and Sheriff Gilmour concluded that Mrs Reid might have lived if Mr O'Neill had asked for guidance from Edinburgh Royal Infirmary when he ran into difficulties with the operation or if she had been transferred to the city hospital.

Despite Mrs Reid's operation taking much longer than the two hours she and her husband were originally told, Mr Reid never got to see a doctor after his wife was out of surgery and never received an explanation about the operation.

After publication of the sheriff's report, NHS Borders said it accepted the findings and had taken steps to address the relevant issues raised by the Inquiry.

But now every GP in the Borders has received a letter from the group of 12 senior medical practitioners supporting Mr O'Neill and criticising press coverage of the case.

In it, the doctors state that they hold Mr O'Neill in the highest regard as a colleague and that he "enjoys our total confidence as a consultant surgeon in whose hands we would be happy to place ourselves or our families".

The letter continues: "… it could be helpful to pass on our feeling to any patients who might raise with you understandable worries regarding issues raised by such unfortunate and one-sided reporting.

"This would help very much to restore the reputation and morale of the surgical unit in general and relieve the inevitable distress caused to an excellent surgeon."

Asked if the letter was sanctioned by NHS Borders senior management, the following statement was issued yesterday (Wednesday): "NHS Borders was made aware in advance of senior clinicians' intent to write to GP colleagues and to the press and is supportive of the sentiments expressed in the letter."

However, the letter makes no mention of whether the 12 surgeons and heads of department accept the sheriff's findings or if it is just the press coverage they objected to.

Neither does it explain which aspects of the coverage they felt were unfair and "one-sided".

TheSouthern wanted to put these questions to Dr John Gaddie, one of the 12 signatories to the letter and the senior overall physician at the BGH, but had received no response to our phone call by the time we went to press yesterday.
05 May 2005