Medical records lost on bike ride home
❤️ Click here: November 2013 - cardiff vale university health board - 201202432
It oversees seventeen health centres, public health and community care services and also has a range of specialist services used by the whole of Wales, including , , and. During his police career he rose from Constable to Assistant Chief Constable with South Wales Police building a national reputation developing community partnerships especially with multi cultural and vulnerable communities. She sits as a Justice of Peace on the Glamorgan Valley Bench for the past 16 years.
She has worked within the Cwm Taf region for many years delivering training and assessing a wide variety of accredited courses across both the public and third sector After graduating from Swansea University Clare worked in Human Resources in London, before returning to South Wales, working in further HR roles before embarking on a career in education and lifelong learning. The hospital also provides services, and child and adolescent services.
Medical records lost on bike ride home - Thank you for subscribing We have more newsletters See our Could not subscribe, try again later Invalid Email A woman fraudulently claimed more than £36,000 in illness and disability benefits while she was actually working for a supermarket and then a health board.
This was a complex clinical negligence case which settled less than 2 weeks before trial. The court is not concerned with issues of proportionality before that date but it is a major issue thereafter. These are the reasons for the decisions that I made on those issues. On 12 th April 2009 MP suffered a cardio-respiratory arrest and a severe hypoxic brain injury which the Claimant attributed to failings in diagnosis, care and treatment. A public funding certificate was granted to MP on 21 st November 2009. Sadly on 5 th December 2010 MP died as the result of the effects of an infection. The Claimant attributed her death to the consequences of the brain injury. On 4 th February 2012 the Claimant entered into a conditional fee agreement with Hugh James. The agreement was expressed to have retrospective effect and to cover work done from 8 th December 2010. It provided for a success fee of 100 per cent unless liability and causation were agreed or the subject of a judgment, in which case the success fee would reduce to 25 per cent. The Defendant denied both liability and causation. A schedule of loss was served in October 2014 seeking total damages of a little over £440,000; of which the principal claims were for general damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity £150,000 and gratuitous care £147,664. Permission was given for both parties to adduce evidence from experts in cardiac surgery, nursing and intensive care. The incurred costs were £102,695. The claim was settled at a round table meeting on 21 st January 2015 on terms that the Defendant would pay damages of £205,000 together with costs on the standard basis. The settlement was approved by the court on 13 th February 2015 and the damages under the Fatal Accidents Act were apportioned between four of the five children of MP. That included a success fee for both solicitors and counsel of 100 per cent, an after the event insurance premium and value added tax. The base costs claimed were £295,269. The bill was divided into parts which reflected changes in the funding arrangements and changes in the rate of value added tax. It was not divided into parts to reflect the phases of the budget, work done before and after 1 st April 2013 or the costs of budgeting. No point was taken as to the format of the bill. That was less than the Defendant had paid on account. Costs which are disproportionate in amount may be disallowed or reduced even if they were reasonably or necessarily incurred; and b resolve any doubt which it may have as to whether costs were reasonably and proportionately incurred or were reasonable and proportionate in amount in favour of the paying party. The court should first make an assessment of reasonable costs, having regard to the individual items in the bill, the time reasonably spent on those items and the other factors listed in CPR rule 44. The court should then stand back and consider whether the total figure is proportionate. If the total figure is not proportionate, the court should make an appropriate reduction. The present case commenced after 1 st April 2013 but work was done before that date. Parts 1 to 5 fell wholly before that date. Part 6 covered the period from 21 st February 2012 to 29 th September 2014. The total base costs in Parts 1 to 5 were £25,009. The total costs in Part 6 were £145,651. It seems to me that only a fairly modest part of that would relate to base costs incurred before 1 st April 2013. For present purposes I have assumed that the total base costs claimed before 1 st April 2013 were about £45,000, although the true figure may well be lower. Preparation of the claim involved close analysis of the treatment provided to MP from a number of disciplines. In this early period the medical records were obtained, cardiothoracic and ENT experts were instructed in relation to liability and a Neurologist was instructed in relation to condition and prognosis. Work was done on quantum, witness statements were drafted, a letter of claim was sent to the Defendant and counsel settled the particulars of claim, advised on quantum and settled the schedule of loss. Had MP lived, the damages claimed would have been significantly greater; but after her death the claim was still of substantial value. In all the circumstances I cannot say that the costs claimed for work done before 1 st April 2013 appear to be disproportionate to the matters in issue. He relied only on the figure of £138,202. T his case involved a considerable amount of lay and expert evidence supplementary statements and reports were served by both parties. The issues on liability and causation developed significantly over the course of the case. This was a complex clinical negligence case which settled less than 2 weeks before trial. The costs allowed bear a reasonable relationship to the sums in issue in the proceedings a claim for £440,000 which settled for £205,000 , even allowing for the costs incurred before 1 st April 2013, and to the complexity of the litigation. This is not a case where additional work was generated by the conduct of the Defendant, nor were there any wider factors involved. Importantly, the costs allowed are likely to be within the amount of the budget approved by the court although the court has not been able to comply with CPR 3. These include where there has been a change in legal representative or where part of the costs claimed relate to a period when the receiving party had legal aid. It has become standard practice for bills to be divided when there has been a change in funding arrangements from private retainer to conditional fee agreement, as indeed was done in the present case, yet this is not one of the circumstances listed under paragraph 5. Where the receiving party has received interim statute bills from his solicitor it is conventional for the between the parties bill to be divided into parts which accord with the solicitor and own client bills. Again this is not a circumstance listed under paragraph 5. In any case in which both approaches need to be taken it will be necessary to identify the work which falls before and after that date and to identify the sums claimed for the work done before and after that date. In my judgment where the case commenced on or after 1 April 2013, the bill covers costs for work done both before and after that date and the costs are to be assessed on the standard basis it must be both convenient and necessary for the bill to be divided into parts so as to distinguish between costs claimed for work done before 1 April 2013 and costs claimed for work done on or after 1 April 2013. It is in respect of the latter only that the court will not depart from the figure for the phase in the approved or agreed budget unless there is good reason to do so. But that breakdown will show only the total sums for costs incurred before and after the budget which are claimed in each phase. It will not identify the phase into which the individual items of work in the bill fall. Although multi-part bills tend to obscure the overall picture, it seems to me that unless a sensible alternative can be devised in a case in which a budget has been approved or agreed and the costs are to be assessed on the standard basis it will be both necessary and convenient to draw the bill in parts which correspond with the phases of the budget. This could be done without further sub-division by use of italics, bold, superscript or some other formatting device. Where a bill has already been drawn without being divided into phases, one possible course to avoid re-drawing the bill would be to serve schedules setting out the individual items of costs claimed in relation to each phase. I understand that a number of courts have directed this. Accordingly on detailed assessment it will be necessary to identify a the costs of initially completing Precedent H and b all other costs of the budgeting and costs management process. In the present case it was necessary for the parties to spend time in the hearing to identify the items of work which related to the budgeting and costs management process. Had the overall result been different the Claimant may have been expected to pay the costs of that in any event. In practice the only additional liability that will be relevant is a success fee. For, if it is not part of the recoverable costs, what is it? As between the receiving party and its solicitor value added tax is tax for which the solicitor must account. As between the paying party and the receiving party it is not tax but a sum recoverable by the receiving party under the indemnity provided by the costs order i. However it would seem highly unlikely that the intention of the Civil Procedure Rule Committee was not to follow the only other example where a cap is imposed: CPR 47. The cap on the costs of provisional assessment is £1,500, including additional liabilities, but excluding value added tax and any court fee. © Gordon Exall, Civil Litigation Brief, 2013-2018. Unauthorised use and or duplication of the material contained on this blog without permission from this blog's author is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Gordon Exall and Civil Litigation Brief with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. Subscribe to Blog via Email.
UHW@40
The hospital began with the beginning of Cardiff Dispensary in 1822. It has become standard practice for bills to be divided when there has been a sin in funding arrangements from private retainer to conditional fee agreement, as indeed was done in the present case, yet this is not one of the circumstances listed under paragraph 5. As a former Honorary Lecturer at the University of Swansea, Ruth has presented papers at the European Health Resistance Association EHMABerlin and St Petersburg University and has written several published health publications. CLOSE Trevor was born in the Lancashire town of Accrington. It provided for a success fee of 100 per cent unless liability and causation were agreed or the subject of a piece, in which case the success fee would reduce to 25 per cent. Rob is married to Margaret and has two grown up daughters and a granddaughter.
