The Medical Defence Union (MDU), the UK's leading medical defence body, today questioned the viability and fairness of introducing a scheme to fast-track low-value clinical negligence claims along the same lines as an existing road traffic accidents scheme.

The road traffic accident scheme is judged as a success but in its response to the Ministry of Justice consultation, Solving disputes in the county courts, the MDU explained that clinical negligence cases are significantly more complex. One further difficulty is that in the primary care and independent sectors claims are generally brought against individual doctors and dentists and can have serious professional and personal repercussions for those involved which are far wider than the claims process. This affects how the MDU defends such claims and means they are unlikely to be amenable to a 'fast-track' scheme

Dr Matthew Lee, Director of Professional Services at the MDU, explained: "In road traffic accidents, it is usually straightforward to determine whether the defendant was at fault and the effect this had on the claimant. But this is rarely true of the clinical negligence cases we see where expert evidence may be needed to determine whether a clinician's treatment fell short of the accepted standard and to determine the impact any negligence may have had on the patient.

"Naturally, it is in the interests of MDU members that their claims are settled as early as possible in cases where patients have been negligently harmed, but it makes no sense to settle them unless there are good grounds to do so. This becomes more important when you realise that doctors and dentists may also be held to account for the incident that gave rise to the claim in other tribunals such as at the GMC where their professional reputations and even careers are at stake. It is essential that doctors and dentists' ability to defend themselves against claims is not fettered by an unthinking quest for efficiency. For example, we could not support any scheme that would require our members to be bound by the opinion of a jointly-instructed expert. Clinical negligence cases often involve significant differences of medical opinion. If we and the member did not agree with the expert, we should not be bound by that opinion.

"In the interests of fairness to doctors and dentists any scheme for low value claims would need to incorporate safeguards. The MDU is doubtful that a scheme for road traffic accidents can be modified sufficiently to make it acceptable to all parties in the highly complex world of clinical negligence."

Solving disputes in the County Courts, Ministry of Justice consultation, 29 March 2011. The MDU's consultation response is published 30 June 2011.

Source:
Medical Defence Union