Medical negligence news 19/12/2006

Personal injury solicitors switch focus of MRSA claims

According to a recent report, the number of MRSA superbug compensation claims may be set to increase and it seems that they may not be so reliant on the usual medical negligence argument.

When it comes to compensation claims of this kind it has always been hard to establish blame as it is difficult to prove precisely when, where and how patients became infected with the superbug.

The attack of the MRSA superbug
MRSA (Methicillan-Resitant Staphylococcus Aureus), which stems from bacteria that is carried naturally in the throats of healthy people, can cause a fatal illness among those that are weak, particularly hospital patients.

This superbug affects the bloodstream and can spread like wild fire, causing epidemics within UK hospital wards. In most cases medical negligence has been blamed for MRSA occurring, including reasons such as staff not washing their hands enough between patients.

Treating MRSA is also a major problem. Up to now, 17 strains of the superbug have been identified and they can only be treated with high doses of antibiotics taken over long periods of time or alternative antibiotics.

More than 1,000 people die as a result of MRSA every year in the UK and thousands more are left with serious health problems or disabilities as a result of contracting the disease. This leaves many of those that have suffered the effects of the disease desperate to seek compensation for the distress that they have experienced.

A new approach to MRSA claims
Even though many cases are still associated with medical negligence, especially with regard to the spreading and treatment of the superbug, a different approach is now being taken to gain suffering patients the personal injury compensation that they deserve.

COSHH (Control of Substances Hazardous to Health) has been used to aid compensation claims cases for MRSA. The COSHH requires employers to control exposure to hazardous substances in order to prevent workplace injuries and ill health and personal injury solicitors have argued that this should also apply hospital patients.

Although there have been only a few successful settlements to date, at least two have involved the COSHH being cited. Phil Barnes, a solicitor that worked on one of these cases, has commented, "The advantage with COSHH is that it places the burden on the defendant to prove they are meeting the requirements.

"I know that solicitors across the country are beginning to look at this as a way of pursuing claims.

"What we need now is for one to reach court to set a precedent, but at the moment the NHS seems to be picking off the strongest cases to settle them before it gets that far."

Some of the country's leading personal injury law firms, such as Irwin Mitchell, Anthony Collins and Hugh James, have also confirmed that they will follow the same route when dealing with MRSA compensation claim cases.

How does this stand with the medical authorities?
Although some hospital representatives see this new way of tackling compensation claim cases as less than favourable and both the NHS Litigation Authority, which handles legal challenges for hospitals in England, and the Department of Health have refused to comment on the issue, others have praised the new approach taken by personal injury solicitors.

Head of infection control at London's Great Ormond Street Hospital and member of the government's Specialist Advisory Committee on Antimicrobial Resistance, Susan MacQueen, has said, "I think this presents the best route for people to pursue the NHS.

"They [MRSA claims] have traditionally been very hard to proceed with, but lawyers seem to have come up with a way of moving forward with them."

She did comment that hospitals had expressed concern that successful claims covered by COSHH may lead to an influx of claims, but added, "It will help patients hold the NHS to account and that will help improve our performance in infection control so it is also a good thing."

The involvement of COSHH to the compensation claim process ultimately means that although medical negligence may still be the route cause of MRSA outbreaks in UK hospitals, patients who have contracted the disease and suffered its symptoms may be able to make more successful compensation claims.