Please note that the office will close for Christmas at 11am on Friday 21 December 2018 and re-open at 9am on Wednesday 2 January 2019.
We are delighted that once again, we have received the top ranking in 2 prestigious guides to UK solicitors; Chambers & Partners and The Legal 500. These rankings, which we have held for many years, are reviewed each year following interviews from clients and legal professionals with whom we work.
We are the only firm in the Teesside area to be awarded a Band 1 ranking for Claimant clinical negligence work by Chambers & Partners and we have also been awarded a Tier 1 ranking in The Legal 500. We are described as a “top-quality boutique with a superb reputation for complex clinical negligence claims and expertise in a wide range of matters”. Our solicitors are praised for being “friendly, prompt when communicating and have really good specialist knowledge of their subject” and that “nothing fazes them and they obtain good results for their clients, who they place at the centre of each case.”
In these publications, Hilton Armstrong is described as “a tough and determined litigator” with “excellent judgement” who “always explains matters clearly, is always approachable and keeps us informed as to what is happening and why.”
Joanne Davies is hailed for being “extremely meticulous” with clients reportedly being particularly impressed by the “very proactive, clear and understanding” way she handles claims.
Ashleigh Holt, who is described as being “experienced and intuitive” is applauded for conducting litigation “with exemplary vision and skill”. Interviewees report her to be “very organised, engaged with the issues and understanding of the situation.”
Kathryn Watson is also recommended with sources admiring “her knowledge and client service” with one client reporting “you can tell that she cares.”
We are proud to continue to hold top rankings in these two reputable publications and are gratified to receive such positive feedback, particularly from our clients as their opinions are what matter to us most.
If you or a family member have concerns about any aspect of medical treatment and would like no obligation advice from one of our solicitors, please do not hesitate to contact us on 01642 231110.
Kathryn Watson – December 2018
The Supreme Court have this month ruled that incorrect information on waiting times at A&E given by a receptionist at the Mayday Hospital, Croydon resulting in permanent brain damage could be considered negligent. The Court decided that it justified an award of compensation in the same way as incorrect doctor’s advice or treatment would.
Mr Darnley attended A&E with a head injury and feeling very unwell, only to be told by the receptionist that there was a 4 or 5 hour waiting time before he could be seen by a doctor. After waiting for 19 minutes and feeling very unwell he left unable to face the prospect of several hours wait. He was returned to hospital later that night as an emergency. He was diagnosed as suffering a large bleed on the brain and despite surgery he suffered permanent brain damage. He and his legal team argued that he been treated sooner or immediately on collapse he would have made a nearly full recovery. He made a claim for compensation against the NHS Trust who run the hospital for the brain damage suffered and its effect on his life.
The A&E receptionists working there agreed that in this situation they would usually advise a patient would seen by a Triage Nurse in 30 minutes and/or would consider priority Triage but neither admitted to giving the mistaken advice. Mr Darnley argues that if he had been told this he would never have left hospital after 19 minutes and the bleed would have been diagnosed and treated sooner. When this was first heard by a Judge the claim was unsuccessful. It was appealed and the Court of Appeal ruled that it was not negligent for incorrect advice on waiting times to be given by the receptionist and that the injury was not caused by this in any event.
Mr Darnley then appealed this further to the Supreme Court who have this month ruled that a receptionist giving waiting time advice in an A&E department like this has a duty of care to the patients to act appropriately. They are responsible for the advice given in the same way any medical professional is. These receptionists/non-medical staff were given the role by the Trust as the first point of contact and owed a duty to the patients. They also stated that there was a direct link between this advice on waiting times and the injury he suffered as a result and that earlier diagnosis would have resulted in admission and earlier treatment with a nearly full recovery.
This is an important case as it establishes that incorrect advice from non-medical staff working for NHS Trusts, in particular an A&E receptionist, which results in an injury to a person could justify a claim for damages like any other compensation claim arising out of negligence by medical professionals. The circumstances of each case and whether the advice caused an injury will need to be considered but if you feel you have been in a situation like this please do not hesitate to speak to one of our solicitors on 01642 231110 for a free no obligation chat.
Joanne Davies – November 2018
As a patient, you have a right to see and obtain copies of your medical records (see our previous post https://armstrongfoulkes.co.uk/your-rights-to-access-medical-records/). However, with the introduction of GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018, the rules surrounding such a request for copy records have changed.
Data Protection Act 2018
Under the new rules, a patient still has a right to request copies of their medical records and the procedure for doing so remains the same. However, whereas before the organisation holding the records (such as a hospital or GP practice) could charge up to a maximum of £50 to provide copies, there should now be no charge unless the request is “manifestly unfounded or excessive”. Therefore, in the vast majority of cases, you should be able to obtain copies of your records free of charge.
The new rules also provide that you should receive copies of your records more quickly than previously. Under the old rules, a provider had 40 days to provide copies whereas this has now been reduced to 1 month from receipt of the request.
Access to Health Records Act 1990
The new rules only apply to request for copy records for a living person and therefore the rules relating to requests for records of someone who has died have not changed. Such requests are still governed by the Access to Health Records Act 1990. This act says that the person providing the records is entitled to charge a fee and there is no maximum amount.
We are always happy to speak to you if you need assistance or advice on obtaining your records or about any possible claim. Please feel free to call one of our specialist solicitors on 01642 231110 for a free no obligation chat.
Kathryn Watson – August 2018
As solicitors specialising in Medical Negligence claims we are regularly approached by parents who are contacting us as a result of the loss of their child before, during and after their birth as a result of suspected negligence treatment. We know that despite our knowledge of the events and experience in these claims we can never know how these parents feel or what they are going through. We do however strive to be understanding and respectful in these situations. Our Joanne Davies, Ashleigh Holt and Kathryn Watson have therefore recently undergone training with the Foundation for Infant Loss to better understand the grieving process and what occurs in hospital after the loss of an infant. Our aim is to become better informed and improve a difficult experience pursuing a clinical negligence claim in these situations. As a result of this training Armstrong Foulkes is now proud to be accredited by and supported by the Foundation for Infant Loss. www.foundationforinfantloss.co.uk/. Our accreditation certificate is set out below.
If as a client or even as a visitor to our website we can offer you any further information on the Foundation and its services please do not hesitate to contact us. If you have suffered the loss of a child as a result of clinical negligence we appreciate that the thought of approaching a solicitor can be a daunting. Our solicitors are always prepared to have informal discussions by telephone without any obligation to proceed with a claim. If we can be of assistance please do not hesitate to contact us on 01642 231110.
Joanne Davies – July 2018
This is to certify that: Armstrong Foulkes Solicitors
Are fully accredited and supported by The Foundation for Infant Loss Training
Dr Chantal Lockey
The Foundation for Infant Loss Training
1 July 2018
To run a case Lawyers collect and process a lot of information on clients including some personal data e.g. date of birth, email address, national insurance number, passport or driving licence number etc. We also share this data with others e.g. experts we instruct, the Barrister on the case, the Defendants solicitors etc. We have to do this or we couldn’t pursue the claim.
The law is changing on 25 May 2018. This is when the General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) comes into force. It impose obligations on all organisations (not just us Lawyers) to look after this personal data safely, process it lawfully and restrict its access by others. Clients have the right to see this data and have it deleted at any time, although insisting on deletion whilst a case is ongoing would of course not be practical.
I think GDPR is good news for all of us. It should ensure that our personal data is looked after more securely by all organisations and not passed on or sold to others without our specific consent. I am hoping the amount of spam emails and the unsolicited calls and texts we are all plagued by at the moment substantially reduces. Fingers crossed, although I am not holding my breath!
Hilton Armstrong – June 2018
The title “Junior doctor” can relate to someone just out of medical school or someone who is as much as 5 years out of medical school.
In many hospitals across the UK you will find very junior doctors covering hospitals, particularly at night, with very little support however the responsibility for clinical decisions will still always lie with senior medical staff.
Having such junior staff in very busy departments such as the Emergency Department (ED, formerly A&E) can present a problem for the hospital but also the patient. This short article will deal with just a few of the issues arising from junior doctors.
- Junior doctors can be overly cautious. Just by the nature of the career they have chosen to follow, we know they are high achievers in life and have so far done very well. They are terrified of making mistakes and this is likely to happen when they start treating real patients. Much of the work in ED is making numerous decisions and not making the right one can be a terrifying prospect.
- Junior doctors can be inclined to inherit another doctor’s thinking rather than apply their own judgement. This can be a particular problem when they are involved in handovers and at the end of shifts. This can also be a factor in cases involving recurrent attending patients if the junior doctor does not look beyond what his colleague wrote in the notes a week before and he/she fails to listen to the patient or carer. This can lead to the correct diagnosis being missed.
- Junior doctors are overworked particularly during night shifts when they are tired and more likely to make a mistake and there is less supervision.
- Junior doctors by their nature are very inexperienced and this will be apparent in their judgement. They will struggle with young children as patients. Quite often this is because the junior doctors have never been around young babies or infants and in most cases will not have started families themselves. They also struggle with neurological injuries and issues particularly involving the spinal cord or patients with multiple injuries. All of this increases the risk of them forgetting/missing something.
- Junior doctors can be pressured to make unsafe clinical decisions. In many cases the junior doctor will ask for a speciality review (e.g. surgical review for a patient with suspected appendicitis) or ask for some complex imaging such as an MRI. However in many cases the junior doctor is unable to assert themselves to get someone to see their patient or to get agreement for a scan to go ahead and they accept what in some cases turns out to be unsafe advice to discharge the patient.
The NHS is attempting to minimise mistakes and provide all staff with more support systems and standard operating systems. For example, many hospitals/Trusts now have specialist teams set up to deal with patients suffering from life threatening and changing conditions such as strokes, sepsis or cardiac arrests. They are trying to ensure that there is more senior review available and they continue to introduce safety netting policies to cover a range of situations however calamitous mistakes continue to be made and in some cases the mistake was avoidable.
If you are concerned about any treatment or care you have had which you believe has caused you to suffer an injury, please do not hesitate to contact us and speak to one of our specialist solicitors.
Ashleigh Holt – May 2018
I am delighted to announce that following on from our Tier 1 rating in Legal 500 (see article 01/11/2017) we have been again awarded the highest rating (Band 1) for excellence in clinical negligence work in the Teesside area. This rating is given by a prestigious guide to UK Lawyers entitled “Chambers & Partners” where we are described as a “Specialist boutique with a superb reputation for handling complex clinical negligence claims”. These ratings are reviewed annually and based on interviews with our clients and barristers with whom we work and the feedback they give on our solicitors and the firm in general.
Our 3 partners were singled out for praise for their work, Hilton Armstrong is described as “very friendly, very approachable; he’s lovely to deal with”, Joanne Davies (neé Dennison) is “very reliable, very bright and always gives me the information I need” and Ashleigh Holt is praised for the way she handles a range of complex clinical negligence matters.
One client stated “They have made it very easy for me, and have taken a lot of stress away”. This alone makes us feel we are doing our job well as our priority is always our clients and ensuring that what can be a difficult experience is as stress free as possible. We are, however, equally proud when recognised for the hard work we do on our clients’ behalf and this ranking is a reflection of the dedication of the entire team from our admin staff to the Partners. If you would like any information on this please do not hesitate to contact us or read the review for yourself using the link below.
Joanne Davies (neé Dennison) – March 2018
There is a fixed amount of money that is awarded to certain close relatives when someone dies in an accident. It applies to medical claims and other accidents when someone else is proved to be at fault. The sum is fixed by Parliament and is currently £12,980 and is called a ‘bereavement award’. It is Parliament’s financial assessment of the amount of money needed to compensate you for your grief and suffering from losing a loved one.
However, injustices have arisen (not only because the amount is small) but also because the people who are entitled to claim is limited by Parliament in the Fatal Accidents Act 1976. Surviving spouses (or civil partners) and the parents of children under 18 years of age are the only two groups who are eligible. If you are cohabitees or a parent of a child over the age of 18 you are not entitled. As about 17% of couples now living together are either not married or in a civil partnership it affects a lot of people.
Some of this injustice may be remedied shortly. A recent Court of Appeal case (Smith –v- Lancashire Teaching Hospitals) has declared that to exclude cohabitees is not compatible with the Human Rights Act 1998. What does this mean? Sadly nothing for Miss Smith but there is now a hope that Parliament will look again at its definition of who can claim and extend it to cohabitees. However, with all things Brexit preoccupying the Government I am not hopeful this will be sorted any time soon.
Hilton Armstrong – December 2017
Armstrong Foulkes has proudly retained its Tier 1 ranking in The Legal 500 2017 database of lawyers and solicitors in the UK. No other firm specialising or working in clinical negligence in the Teesside area has been awarded this accolade and as specialists in this field we are elated that this has come just after celebrating the 25th anniversary of Armstrong Foulkes opening its doors in Middlesbrough.
After interviewing our clients and other legal professionals we work with Armstrong Foulkes LLP is described as having “an unrivalled and enviable reputation in the region of clinical negligence work.” The three partners in the firm were acknowledged for their efforts in this field. Joanne Davies is set apart with her “excellent understanding of medical issues and always gets outstanding results”. Ashleigh Holt is described as “highly efficient” and Hilton Armstrong who leads the firm is “a clever, committed and passionate advocate who achieves excellent results in an unfussy manner”.
Joanne Davies said “We are proud and delighted that the firm has been recognised for the specialist service we provide in this type of claim and particularly pleased that the dedication of our solicitors on behalf of our clients has been both highlighted and praised.”
Ashleigh Holt – November 2017
On 1 October 1992, Hilton Armstrong and Peter Foulkes set up Armstrong Foulkes, with their intention being to set up a firm of solicitors specialising in clinical negligence and personal injury. At the time, there were no other firms in the area that specialised in clinical negligence and we were the first firm in Teesside to have a legal aid contract for clinical negligence and the only one to have such a contract for many years.
Peter retired on 1 October 2013 when Joanne Davies and Ashleigh Holt became partners and Armstrong Foulkes became Armstrong Foulkes LLP, a limited liability partnership.
Throughout the past 25 years, the firm has gone from strength to strength and is nationally recognised as being a leading clinical negligence firm. We are described in Chambers and Partners, which ranks lawyers worldwide, as a “specialist boutique with a superb reputation for handling complex clinical negligence claims. Advises and represents clients on a wide range of matters, including child brain injury and surgical negligence cases, and also handles claims concerning delayed diagnoses.” The top firms are ranked from Band 1 to 6 (with 1 being the highest ranking achievable) and we are pleased that we continue to hold a Band 1 ranking and have done for many years now.
The firm now comprises 5 fee earners – Hilton, Joanne and Ashleigh (the partners) and Kathryn and Dan (solicitors). We also have 4 support staff – Liz (who has been with the firm since the outset), Caroline, Jan and Honor.
Hilton says specialising in clinical negligence suits his personality as it requires great attention to detail. This is a trait of his that is recognised in Chambers and Partners as he is noted to be “technically very competent, very thorough and will go the extra distance to investigate a case to see if there is something in it.” As well as ranking firms of solicitors, Chambers and Partners also ranks the top solicitors in the country and Hilton continues to hold a Band 1 ranking. Ashleigh and Joanne are also recommended.
The partners have yet to decide how we are going to celebrate the 25 year milestone but we have been assured it will be something to look forward to! In the meantime, in true Armstrong Foulkes style, we have celebrated with cake!
If you would like to speak to one of our solicitors for advice about a potential clinical negligence claim, please telephone us on 01642 231110.
Kathryn Watson, October 2017
Our solicitors and indeed the profession have awaited with some dread Lord Justice Jackson’s review of costs in civil matters which includes clinical negligence claims. It was suggested that there should be a fixed amount of costs allowed for claims up to a certain value, whether it is a contract dispute, a neighbour dispute or a complex clinical negligence claim. This was worrying because this took no account of the very individual nature of clinical negligence claims, where each claim, like each person is very different. Two people could, for example, have suffered the same mistake or be misdiagnosed with the same condition but the reasons for this, the investigation and the effect on them can be completely different needing an individual approach to each claim. It was always our view that a “one size fits all” system would only lead to people being denied the thorough investigation they deserve.
The costs paid by the defendant that the media and the NHS repeatedly complain are too high and who portray solicitors as “bleeding the NHS dry” are not a “windfall” for solicitors as has been claimed. They include the costs of multiple medical experts whose involvement can in large value cases cost tens of thousands of pounds and the fees for specialist barristers to advise on the case and represent the Claimant at Court. Cases proceeding to Trial involve solicitors’ costs for work over generally 3-6 years, some even longer. Limiting costs available to pursue a claim can, in our opinion, only result eventually in being unable to properly investigate a claim. Being denied the opportunity to fully investigate and subsequently being denied justice could result in the loss of the much needed compensation that allows those injured to live with the effects of the negligence and improve their life.
Lord Justice Jackson’s review, published in July, has recommended many changes and has thankfully rejected a “one size fits all” system. However the most significant proposal for the work we do is to suggest limiting the level of costs for Clinical Negligence work in cases with a value of up to £25,000. At each stage in the case there will be a fixed amount of costs available. This is not ideal and will include cases which are very complex and emotional to investigate but lower in value such as errors causing the deaths of children. It remains to be seen how or when this process will be finalised and there is a lot more work to be done before then but it is clear there will be implementation in the future of a fixed amount of costs to some clinical negligence cases.
Here at Armstrong Foulkes our solicitors are always available to discuss a potential case and advise you of your options irrespective of the value or level of injury. Please do not hesitate to contact us for a free no-obligation chat on 01642 231110.
Joanne Davies – September 2017
For the second time in two years a team of my friends and I were lucky enough to take part in the Red Bull Soapbox race held at Alexandra Palace in London.
Out of the over 4,000 teams that applied 70 were chosen to take part in the day. On the race weekend we lined up next to some fantastic soapboxes, including a Harry Potter inspired motorcycle and sidecar, a giant Donald Trump in a bathtub and my personal favourite, a pair of raptors from Jurassic Park! The quality of design and construction of some of these soapboxes was outstanding.
Our soapbox was built from scratch and inspired by the Mad Max films. While we were all very happy with how the soapbox tuned out, in hindsight our heavy and thick costumes may have been a little warm for a hot summer day spent out in the sun!
Although we took part in the race back in 2015 we are sure that the track must have somehow gotten steeper, and the jumps bigger, in the last 2 years. Particularly daunting this year was a water jump, the first jump on the course and for many teams the only one they got to.
Despite the obstacles both my co-driver and I got to the end of the track in one piece, although unfortunately the same can’t be said for our soapbox, which chose to disintegrate spectacularly on the way down, I am sure adding to the thrill for the spectators!
Now it’s back to the drawing board for 2019’s idea……..
Dan Richardson, August 2017
[“All Dan’s colleagues here at Armstrong Foulkes were very proud, thrilled and a little scared as we watched video of him fly down the course, dodging obstacles in a disintegrating soapbox! However, like the trooper he is, despite being a little bruised and banged up he was straight back in the office and is already planning for next race! Well done Dan” – Editor]
The answer to this question is “No”. You may think this is an irrelevant question and therefore pointless answer, but there is more to it than first seems. I shall explain.
Before the General Election the Government had made it clear that it was their intention to reduce the bill to the NHS arising out of clinical negligence claims. Not only did they want to reduce the legal fees but they hoped this would also cause a reduction in the number of valid claims. They were seeking to reduce an injured person’s access to justice by making it harder to pursue a claim.
This isn’t fair. So we like many other firms and charities campaigned against it. I wrote to three of our local MP’s setting out in some detail the effect of these changes on their constituents, inviting them to share their own views and asking which way they intended to vote. Only one replied. I wrote to the two major parties candidates in my own constituency, neither replied. It’s pretty clear to me that this issue is not all that important to them. It’s not a vote winner, which means the party in charge will usually get its own way.
The significance of the hung Parliament we now have is that changing the current system of compensating victims of medical negligence and making it harder to bring a claim may not be so high up on their list of priorities – they have bigger fish to fry.
This is good news for all those unfortunate enough to have been injured.
Hilton Armstrong – July 2017
We are pleased to announce that over the last year Armstrong Foulkes has raised over £950 for a local charity, Teesside and District Society for the Blind. In addition to our “Trick or Treat Tombola” at Halloween and regular “dress down days” we’ve received significant contributions from staff, clients and friends of Armstrong Foulkes. Centre Manager, Rona Ashton thanked us for our tremendous effort and explained “the money raised will be put towards our costs for providing social activities for the blind and partially sighted people living in the Teesside area.”
The charity was brought to our attention by one of our client’s who suffered sudden blindness as a result of negligent medical treatment. In 2010 she developed a recurrence of a condition she had suffered 20 years previously, benign intracranial hypertension. This can cause damage to the optic nerves and consequently visual problems. A simple lumbar puncture would have revealed this and surgery would have halted the progression of her condition but the diagnosis was missed for over 1 year by which time, surgery was too late and our client lost her sight in her mid 60s.
The Blind Centre made a huge difference to our client in that she was able to meet and socialise with people who were similarly affected. She enjoys regular days out and even holidays with the centre. She said in the early days it gave her a reason to get up in the morning. If you are interested in learning more about the charity please look at their website at www.teessideblind.co.uk
Injuries which arise from negligent medical treatment can be devastating and life changing. If you have suffered physically or psychologically as a result of poor medical treatment, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Ashleigh Holt – June 2017
Many people contact us because they would like to complain about the medical treatment they have received but are unsure how to go about it. Alternatively, they may not wish to complain but would like more information or answers to questions they have not had the opportunity of asking or have done so and have not received adequate answers.
You are entitled to complain/ask questions about the treatment you have received. We advise you send a letter to the Chief Executive of the Trust if the treatment was provided by a hospital or district nurse and to the Practice Manager of your GP practice if it was provided by a GP or practice nurse. Complaints should normally be made within 12 months of an incident or of the matter coming to your attention. However, sometimes people understandably don’t feel up to making a complaint so soon after, particularly following a bereavement or serious injury. If more than 12 months have passed since the subject of your complaint, it may be useful to explain in your letter why you are only able to write the letter now and this may encourage the provider of the treatment to investigate your complaint in any event.
The letter of complaint should set out briefly the background to your complaint and then we recommend you make a list of numbered questions that you would like answering. This will then enable the investigator of your complaint to respond to each question in turn. Upon receipt of the complaint, the provider should acknowledge and initiate an investigation. Once their investigation is complete, which may take some time if it is a complex matter, they will either provide you with a written response or invite you to attend a meeting to discuss the matter further. Whether you choose to attend the meeting or not is entirely up to you and what you feel comfortable with. If you do go to a meeting, we advise you to ask for minutes or a recording of the meeting.
Once you have the provider’s response to your complaint, you are entitled to ask further questions if you think the response fails to address all the issues. If you are not happy with the way the complaint has been dealt with, you can take your complaint to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, which is independent of the NHS. They will then look into the matter further for you.
Solicitors are unable to get involved with the complaints process as it is separate from a legal claim. However, if you suspect you or a family member has been injured as a result of medical negligence and you have made a complaint and would like to know what to do next, or if you would like advice before making a complaint, please do not hesitate to contact us on 01642 231110 and one of our solicitors will be happy to talk to you and provide advice on how best to proceed.
Kathryn Watson – May 2017
There are several elements to calculating the right level of compensation. It is usually made up of awards for:
- Pain, suffering and loss of amenity
Your injuries and their effect on you
- Financial expenses incurred.
Anything you have bought or paid for as a direct result of the negligence, for example prescription or medication charges, travel expenses and loss of earnings.
- Future anticipated losses.
These are any losses you will likely suffer in future as a result of the negligence such as ongoing medication charges, regular private treatment, annual fees for something you require or ongoing loss of earnings. They can also be one off future losses or losses recurring every 10 years in the future.
To calculate the future losses there are set formulas that all lawyers use. For future losses you take the likely future expense and multiply it by a figure known as the “multiplier”. All lawyers use actuarial tables known as the “Ogden Tables” to work out the “multiplier” as you cannot simply use the amount of years the loss is expected. There are many different types of tables and of future loss but if we look below in general terms at a recurring loss for a set period you will see how the situation has changed in March in favour of the person claiming compensation.
When compensation is paid at trial you would receive “in your hand” the future financial cost of the expense, therefore if you were to suffer, for example, an annual medication cost of £100 for the next 34 years the calculation should not be £100 x 34 years = £3,400. The reason for this is that if you were to get £3,400 now you could in theory invest this and end up with more than the loss would have been at the end of the 34 years. The purpose of compensation is to put you back to where you would have been had it not been for the accident/incident/negligence therefore having more than your loss at the end of 34 years would be considered a windfall and against this principle. For this reason the figure of 34 is discounted to allow for the fact you could invest it and it could grow.
As mentioned above these discounted figures are set out in the Ogden Tables used by solicitors to calculate the position correctly. From 2001 until 19th March 2017 all “years of loss”,for example, were discounted by 2.5% to provide the correct “multiplier” or figure to times the ongoing or future loss by.
From 20th March 2017 the figure to use to discount the future loss has changed. Now instead of discounting by 2.5% in the above 34 year example it will be discounted by -0.75%. This is an incredible change and significantly increases the total figure. 34 years annual loss in this situation which at 2.5% discount was 23.01 years totalled £2,301. This becomes 38.75 years at -0.75% discount totalling £3,875. This is more than the anticipated loss at £100 per year for 34 years. Any claim with future losses has now increased in value. In some claims the increase is dramatic by hundreds of thousands of pounds.
Understandably this has not been popular with Defendants and we all accept that this is likely to alter again. The likelihood is that it will change to something which will still potentially mean a discount to the years claimed but one more likely to be balanced by investing the money and returning you to the position you would have been in, had the negligence never occurred.
This is a complicated issue but our solicitors always aim to explain in detail why and how they are claiming losses for you. If you think you may have a claim for compensation and in particular for future loss do not hesitate to call us and speak to one of our specialist clinical negligence solicitors on a free, no obligation, basis.
Joanne Dennison – March 2017
As part of a clinical negligence claim we often obtain copies of medical records during our initial investigations. Many people, however, come to us for advice on obtaining their medical records independently and this article will provide some guidance as to how this can be done.
There are two acts under which medical records can be obtained, for living patients applications should be made under the Data Protection Act 1998 and if the patient has passed away then certain people can apply for their records under the Access to Health Records Act 1990.
Data Protection Act 1998
Under the Data Protection Act 1998 patients have the right to see or obtain copies of their own medical records. You are not required to provide a reason why you want copies of your medical records. Requests for records should be addressed to the records manager at the relevant GP surgery or hospital and make it clear that the request is under the Data Protection Act 1998.
Once the request is received the healthcare provider will contact you outlining their fees for providing copies of the records. They may not charge you any fee at all, but if they do the amount they are entitled to charge differs depending on how the records are held (electronically, on paper or a combination of the two) and when they were last added to but cannot exceed £50 and is often much less than this. Once they receive payment the healthcare provider has 40 days to provide you with copies of your records. If you don’t receive them within this time you should chase them and remind them this is a breach of their duty under the Data Protection Regulations 2000.
Access to Health Records Act 1990
The Access to Health Records Act 1990 allows certain people, typically family or Personal Representatives of the deceased’s estate or any other person who may have a claim arising from the death, to access the records of patients who have passed away. If it is hospital records that are required then the application process is similar to an application under the Data Protection Act, a request should be made in writing to the records manager at the hospital where the treatment was received, making it clear that the application is under the Access to Health Records Act 1990. You may be asked to provide proof of your identity and relationship with the deceased to ensure you are entitled to access the requested records.
When a patient dies their GP records are typically transferred to be stored centrally by an NHS body called Primary Care Support England, the GP surgery will be able to advise you whether this has happened. The Primary Care Support England website (http://pcse.england.nhs.uk) provides a detailed application form needed to obtain a deceased patient’s GP records.
To simply view the records under the Access to Health Records Act a fee of £10 can be charged. If copies of the records are required then they are entitled to charge a further fee for photocopying and postage. Unlike a request under the Data Protection Act these charges are not subject to any upper limit.
If after you have obtained your records you have any questions or you would like advice on any possible claim please do not hesitate to contact us and one of our solicitors would be happy to provide you with advice and guide you through your options.
Dan Richardson – March 2017
If you are looking for a Solicitor to handle your medical claim, then you will probably do the following:
- Search the internet.
- See an advert in your local paper or on TV.
- Listen to a friend, relation or colleague.
- Contact your family Solicitor.
Nowadays, lots of Solicitors are doing Clinical Negligence work but that does not mean they are specialists. They are turning their hand to it because they are short of work. Their adverts are very good and they will promise you the world: e.g. “we expect to settle your claim within 6 to 12 months” or “we have successfully recovered compensation for thousands of injured people” and so on. This is all rubbish.
So, why should you go to a specialist like us? There is only one reason:
Would you be happy if a Neurosurgeon was going to remove your appendix, or if an Orthopaedic Surgeon operated on your brain? Both are very competent in their own field but you would be a fool to trust them if they strayed out of their area of expertise – so why do it with your medical claim?
We only deal with medical claims for injured people on Teesside and in the North East. We have years of experience which enable us to get you the best result for you, both in terms of compensation and answers.
We have national recognition and are listed in Chambers and The Legal 500:
Ring us today at 01642 231110 and we will tell you if you have a claim worth pursuing. You will speak to an experienced Solicitor who will give you straightforward answers.
Hilton Armstrong – February 2017
We are proud to announce that Armstrong Foulkes LLP has retained its status as the only Band 1 recommended firm dealing with clinical negligence for injured patients in Middlesbrough and surrounds in the 2016 edition of Chambers and Partners which was published at the end of last year. The ranking, which is the highest accolade awarded by Chambers and Partners assessed things which matter to our clients such as our technical legal ability, our professional conduct, our client service, our diligence and our commitment among other qualities most valued by clients. Comments included:
“They specialise in clinical negligence work. They know what they are about and get good results for their clients.”
“They are very compassionate, the communication is excellent and they are extremely efficient and in-depth in their research.”
In addition, all three of our Partners – Hilton Armstrong, Joanne Dennison and Ashleigh Holt – were also ranked in the prestigious guide which identifies and ranks the most outstanding law firms and lawyers around the world.
Ashleigh Holt of Armstrong Foulkes LLP said “By achieving this ranking we feel very proud to be able to represent injured patients in the Tees Valley and surrounding areas and to continue to do our very best for them.”
Ashleigh Holt – January 2017
Each year we reach out to our clients for recommendations of a local charity to support and pick one at random to support for that year. This year we are fundraising for the Teesside & District Society for the Blind, a fantastic independent local charity that assists over 2,000 blind and partially sighted people across Teesside and the surrounding areas. We have a donation box in our reception all year but we are always looking for an excuse to hold a fundraising day for such a worthy cause and Halloween offered the perfect opportunity.
The office got a chilling make over and all the staff got into the Halloween spirit with some great costumes. It’s not every day you get to work to see a witch falling out with the photocopier or chat to a ghoul at the water cooler.
As well as an impressive selection of homemade cakes, brownies and other treats for sale (and a selection of low calorie alternatives which didn’t prove quite as popular!) we had a competition to guess the name of the witch’s cat and a trick or treat tombola. In keeping with the trick or treat theme there were some great prizes on offer alongside some not so fantastic ones, although you can really never know when a selection of kitchen sponges and a washing up brush might come in handy.
Thanks to the efforts and generosity of our staff and the other tenants of the Cleveland Business Centre the day was a great success and raised over £220 for the Teesside & District Society for the Blind. Every donation is appreciated and helps this charity continue to provide its vital support and assistance to the blind and partially sighted community of Teesside. If you would like any further information on the charity or to make a donation please get in touch and we can provide you with their contact details or arrange to forward this on your behalf.
Now we just need to find an excuse for November….Thanksgiving anyone?
Dan Richardson – November 2016
On Monday 31 October 2016 we are holding a Halloween themed fundraising day in aid of our nominated charity for this year, Teesside & District Society for the Blind. The staff will be dressed up and activities include a Trick or Treat Tombola and a Name the Witch’s Cat game. There will also be a variety of cakes and sweets for sale. Come and join in the fun!
We are the only firm in Teesside to be ranked Tier 1 for Clinical Negligence work by the prestigious Legal 500 Guide to the UK Legal Profession. The guide, one of the leading independent guides to the profession, notes that
“Armstrong Foulkes LLP’s well-regarded boutique practice is led by ‘honest and straightforward’ managing partner Hilton Armstrong, whose recent cases include a catastrophic brain injury resulting from oxygen starvation at birth. Kathryn Watson and Ashleigh Holt are also recommended”
There are only three other firms in the whole of the North East of England, Yorkshire and Humberside who also have a Tier 1 listing and they are based in Leeds, Sheffield and Newcastle.
Hilton Armstrong – October 2016
After handing over all of the money we raised in the last year to The Middlesbrough MS Therapy Centre I can confirm that Armstrong Foulkes raised a total of £1,142.37. If you have been following our endeavours you will see that we got into the Wimbledon spirit by selling strawberries and cream, we had a Christmas Jumper day and we had a week of Easter related fund raising activities including a “name the bunny” game, a tombola and cake stall all of which were kindly organised and run by our staff. The funds raised from these events have been topped up with further money raised throughout the year from dress down days and kind donations from our staff, clients and friends of Armstrong Foulkes.
Alan Riddiough, Centre Manager told us “It is increasingly more difficult to obtain large donations these days and your efforts are very much appreciated. The Charity provides Oxygen Therapy, Physiotherapy, Reflexology, and various other treatments to M.S. sufferers at our Therapy Centre. All monies raised goes to help and support sufferers of Multiple Sclerosis.”
This year we asked our clients to help us again pick a local charity we can help and I am pleased to announce that this year Armstrong Foulkes will be supporting Teesside & District Society for the Blind, a small independent charity assisting over 2,000 local blind and partially sighted people in the Teesside and surrounding areas and we can’t wait to get started!
Ashleigh Holt – May 2016
Each year at Armstrong Foulkes we choose a local charity to support from nominations made by our clients. For the past year, we have been supporting the Middlesbrough Multiple Sclerosis Therapy Centre. For further information about the services they provide, please see their website at www.middlesbroughmstherapy.org
As we have now been supporting this charity for almost a year, the time has come for us to choose a new local charity to support but we wanted to give one final fundraising push in order to raise as much money for the users of the Middlesbrough MS Therapy Centre. Our Easter related fundraising activities included a “Name The Bunny” competition to win a Hotel Chocolat Easter gift bag, a tombola and a cake and sweet stall. People were very enthusiastic with their involvement and very generous with their donations (although one did want to check before buying a chocolate cornflake cake that we had used Kellogg’s cornflakes!). In total from this event alone we raised over £230.
The Middlesbrough MS Therapy Centre will shortly let us know how much we have raised in total over the past year so watch this space. For the next 12 months, we will be supporting Teesside & District Society for the Blind. This charity was nominated by one of our clients who lost her sight in 2011 as a result of medical negligence. She attends the centre 3 times a week and it has been a huge support to her over the recent years. If you would like more information on this charity, please visit their website at www.teessideblind.co.uk
Kathryn Watson – April 2016
After almost 5 years of academic and practical legal training on 01/02/2016 I completed my training contract with Armstrong Foulkes LLP and qualified as a solicitor. As is apparent from our other news and views articles I certainly picked an interesting time to train as a medical negligence solicitor. During my training, changes have been made to the legal aid system, meaning that it is no longer available for the vast majority of medical negligence claims. The more usual personal injury claims have also become less profitable, meaning that many law firms who have not traditionally undertaken this kind of work are now trying their hand at it.
During this time of change I feel very lucky to have had the opportunity to train and qualify with a specialist firm who exclusively undertake medical negligence work. This has allowed me to focus almost entirely on this complex area of law and while no two claims are alike I have gained experience of a huge variety of medical negligence cases, from substandard dental work to delayed cancer diagnoses, neglect in care homes, the provision of unnecessary or incorrect medication and even surgical fires.
The firm’s dedication to excellence in legal practice and client care, as recognised by our recent Lexcel accreditation, has provided the best possible environment for me to learn and develop as a solicitor. Now that I have finally qualified I look forward to continuing to use my knowledge and training in this specialised area of law to continue Armstrong Foulkes’ track record of excellence in helping the people of Teesside obtain redress when their medical care goes wrong.
Dan Richardson – February 2016
We have recently secured the national Law Society’s legal practice quality mark, Lexcel.
Lexcel is developed specifically for the legal profession. It is an optional, recognised accreditation scheme for law firms and in-house legal departments which gives assurance that a practice meets high client care and business management.
To gain and retain Lexcel accreditation, practices must undergo a rigorous initial then annual application and assessment process. This includes conducting background checks and an on-site visit from an independent experienced trained Lexcel assessor.
While we are proud to have secured Lexcel, it is our clients and staff who are the main beneficiaries. They can be assured that the way we manage the practice has their interests at heart and runs efficiently. There is a lot of choice in the legal services market, but being Lexcel accredited demonstrates our commitment to client care and best practice.
Jonathan Smithers, President of the Law Society of England and Wales, said: “Gaining and maintaining Lexcel is a considerable feat. There are many facets of being a Lexcel accredited law firm, including excellence in client care. A real commitment to customer service in today’s evermore competitive legal services market is vital.”
“By undergoing the rigorous Lexcel application and assessment process, practices can show the positive steps which they are taking to help clients in the increasingly diverse and complicated legal services market.”
“The scheme is a beacon of quality to clients and potential clients alike.”
We join more than 1700 other legal practices in England and Wales with Lexcel accreditation. The practice management accolade has also gone international, with firms in Scotland, the Middle East, Poland and the Republic of Ireland having gained accreditation.
Hilton Armstrong – 21 January 2016
In his Autumn statement the Chancellor of the Exchequer revealed plans to increase the personal injury small claims limit from £1,000 to £5,000. In short, this means that if you have suffered personal injuries which are not valued at more than £5,000 you will recover only limited legal costs and so if you want to pursue a claim you will probably need to do so without legal representation via the small claims court
The main driving force for this is to control whiplash claims and thereby reduce the insurance premiums paid by motorists (we’ll see about that!). It is not clear if this will be applied across the board and encompass medical negligence claims and if the driving force is to control motoring insurance premiums for public companies then we strongly disagree that it should however if it does it will be another kick in the teeth for victims injured through the negligent acts or omissions of those they have put the utmost trust in.
For example, someone who suffers a seemingly straightforward collapsed lung through the negligent placement of a needle would struggle to bring a claim as on the face of it the injuries they had suffered would appear minor and probably not worth compensation of £5,000 and therefore the injured patient would not be able to afford the legal representation they require. If they go it alone, how would they prove that the needle had been inserted negligently? How do they prove what the ill effects of that negligent treatment are and how can they be sure that they are not at risk of future complications?
The onus is on the Claimant to prove their case and without having access to expert legal representation genuinely injured patients are at risk of being unable to pursue a claim. Not everyone has the ability to do this on their own or for themselves – I’m sure that many of us could try and swot up on how to fit a new bathroom or plumb in a toilet and yet plumbing is a thriving business because most of us want to make sure the job is done properly and so we approach an expert to do the job for us. There really isn’t any difference.
At Armstrong Foulkes we consider all types of medical negligence claims. We have helped many injured patients over the years who have suffered low value injuries however the ability to get justice or an acknowledgement of what happened is usually priceless.
There is no set date by which the limit will rise but if you are concerned about medical treatment you have received which you believe has caused or worsened an injury please get in touch.
Ashleigh Holt – January 2016
I am once again pleased and proud to say that the firm and its solicitors have once again been ranked in and recommended by both legal directories. We always try to provide the best service to our clients for Clinical Negligence claims and it is nice to be recognised as the specialists in this field in the Middlesbrough and Tees area.
Chambers & Partners
The “Chambers & Partners” Guide to the best lawyers in the UK is released annually. We have been included in recent years and recommended as a Top Ranked and Leading Firm in Clinical Negligence work in the North East. Again, you may have seen this logo on the home page of our website.
We are delighted to share with you news that we have been included once again in the “Chambers & Partners 2015” hardback and online directory. The firm is recognised as a Band 1 firm (top ranked) in the North East Clinical Negligence Section and the only Band 1 (top ranked) firm to be recommended for this type of law in Middlesbrough & the surrounding areas. We were also pleased to see that all of our partners, Hilton Armstrong, Joanne Dennison and Ashleigh Holt received personal recommendations for their service to clients.
The feedback included in the guide from our clients and barristers with whom we have worked is:
“Fantastic people who have a reputation for winning their cases.”
“A truly specialist firm.”
If you would like any further information please do not hesitate to contact us or to view the recommendation on the link below:
The “Legal 500” is an independent guide to legal firms and individuals, who are included in the online and hardback directory only if they are recommended for their work in their particular area of law. Each Legal 500 guide released every year is separated into not only areas of law but also into geographical areas. We have been privileged to be included as a leading clinical negligence firm in our area for many years and you may have noticed the “Legal 500 – Leading Firm” logo on our home page confirming this.
We are delighted to announce we have once again been included in the 2015 Legal 500 Guide we are listed as one of only 3 “Top Tier” Clinical Negligence firms in the North of England. We are described as ‘genuinely specialist medical negligence firm’ and ‘highly efficient in its conduct of cases’ – See more at: http://www.legal500.com/c/north/insurance/clinical-negligence-claimant#paragraph_17714
We are proud to be the only clinical negligence firm from Middlesbrough and the surrounding areas to be included in this guide. We were also delighted to see all three of our Partners once again recommended personally for their work.
We continue to strive to offer our clients an excellent service and it is always reassuring when this is recognised both by the barristers and other professionals we work with and more importantly as a result of feedback given by our own clients. If you would like any further information please do not hesitate to contact us or to click on the link below:
Joanne Dennison (Once again Proud Editor!) – December 2015
The majority of my time outside of work is taken up by horses and I compete regularly in eventing. Whilst I only have the time to compete 2 or 3 as it takes a lot of training and fitness work to make sure a horse is ready to compete, I have several others. These include horses who have since retired or ones that are too young to compete.
Whilst we do on occasion buy horses, we tend to breed our own and are now breeding the second generation of horses. My old eventer Molly (who we bred 14 years ago) now has a 3 year old gelding (boy) and a filly foal (girl).
I am often asked what eventing entails. The competition is made up of 3 phases which are designed to test the horse and rider in different ways. The scores from each phase are combined to produce an overall total. Eventing is one of the very few sports where professionals and amateurs compete against one another as do men and women as there is no distinction between gender.
The 3 phases are:
This is where the horse and rider have to perform a series of predetermined movements to show the horse’s obedience, suppleness, balance and harmony with the rider and judges score each movement from 1 to 10. It can often be difficult to get a very fit horse to perform a relaxed and precise test. I must admit this is my least favourite of the 3 disciplines and yet the one I have to spend most of my time doing.
This involves one round of jumping over coloured poles that can be knocked down with a maximum time allowed. The aim is to jump a clear round inside the time. There are penalties for knocking a pole down, stopping at a fence or exceeding the time allowed.
This is a course over several kilometres across the country of very solidly built fences and includes logs, stone walls, ponds and streams, ditches, drops and banks and fences in combination. As well as big solid fences, there are a number of obstacles which test the accuracy and training of the horse and rider such as narrow or angled fences and corners. Both horse and rider need to be fit as this is a test of endurance as well as testing the courage, speed, athleticism and trust in one another as whilst there have been a lot of measures taken to improve safety, this is still the phase where horse and/or rider are most likely to be injured. This is by far my favourite phase as it involves jumping and going fast which really gets the adrenaline up.
I am now at the end of the eventing season. The winter will involve less intensive training but will be used as a solid foundation for the season next year starting in March. I will also use the added time winter brings to bring on my young horses who will start competing next year.
Kathryn Watson – October 2015