So if she’d only waited 34 minutes she wouldn’t have had any problems, wouldn’t have had 18 months rehab, would have kept her job?

the service as a whole needs to be held to account or it will never improve.

I’m sure 500k out of their budget will help them improve.

Found somebody else to blame and claim money from?

But everyone is different and had you or I not been able to work due to the trauma what would we have done?

Indeed + a million.

I actually lost my job as a result of a hit and run, I mean I couldn’t work as I was broken, though I was self employed. I got better and got a job. I got a few grand, but I’ll have to work past retirement to pay off my losses, mortgage etc. But I’ve got a roof over my head, food in my belly and I didn’t die.

So if she’d only waited 34 minutes she wouldn’t have had any problems?

we’ll never know, but its not really the point anyway.

I’m sure 500k out of their budget will help them improve.

Do they not have insurance? I’m sure it will certainly make them look into why it happened and financial hits is the world we live in rightly or wrongly. Well educated and trained professionals came to the decision. Obviously you could do better after reading a daily flail article.

I got a few grand,

this is what irks me, had you been rich you’d have no doubt got a load more.

Found somebody else to blame and claim money from?

The daft prick who jumped on my me? and I suppose you could lose your legs in a work accident and would just shug it off as one of those things?

I’ll leave you to your frothing now as I have things to do….

we’ll never know, but its not really the point anyway.
[/quote]

Actually, that is the whole point. If the ambulance had arrived in 34 minutes she wouldn’t have had a claim – her claim is for the damage caused by the extra 17 minute wait, not the whole 50.

Do they not have insurance?

I’d have thought a good chance they self insure like a lot of public bodies – and if not they’ll be paying a lot more in premiums.

Obviously you could do better after reading a daily flail article.

I managed to avoid that by reading the BBC and Guardian reports, but thanks for playing – as I wrote in my first post, I accept the expert opinion on her injuries, just not the conclusion (which appears to have been made without any expert help) that they’re solely attributable to the extra wait.

If it was due to my knee dislocating as I was doing something and nobody else was at fault, then yes. You do understand that the ambulance service weren’t to blame for her dislocating her knee, nor for the majority of the time she waited in agony?

I’ll leave you to your frothing now as I have things to do….

Not sure if that’s aimed at me, but the irony is I’m happier than ever since the accident. I suppose I got the opposite of PTSS, where I feel lucky to be alive and thankful. Cash wouldn’t have healed me or altered my mental state so I didn’t go for it.

Last time it happened I waited about 40 mins, ambulance man arrived and looked at me and said, usually when this happens people go into shock and doesnt hurt that much,

Never seen anyone go into to shock because of a knee dislocation. I have seen people in agony, I’ve seen people limp across sport pitches to meet the ambulance with the aid of friends and others just sit waiting saying “Sorry I’ve had to call you I get this all the time but normally pop it in myself”. But shock no never.

It’s a shame the response was so long as 50 minutes is along time to wait in pain.

Do they not have insurance?
I’d have thought a good chance they self insure like a lot of public bodies – and if not they’ll be paying a lot more in premiums.

The payout was made by the NHS litigation authority. The ambulance service pay the NHSLA an annual fee which is risk assessed against the likelihood of awards being made. The higher the risk, the higher the annual fee.
It’s kind of like an insurance policy which most of the NHS uses.

who ever came up with this 34 mins has made a rod for their own back, it just gives leverage for chancers to claim. As a target fine but Impossible to ever guarantee.
Not read everything but why were the ambulance crew “negligently” late. Refusing to leave a break, well laid down procedures ignored, something that would have ben considered gross negligence within the ambulance service itself ?

From what I’ve read the negligence comes simply from failing to meet the target, nothing to do with why they failed to meet the target.

Not read everything but why were the ambulance crew “negligently” late. Refusing to leave a break, well laid down procedures ignored, something that would have ben considered gross negligence within the ambulance service itself ?

I’d put money on the crew turned up within minutes of getting the call.

Not sure if that’s aimed at me, but the irony is I’m happier than ever since the accident. I suppose I got the opposite of PTSS, where I feel lucky to be alive and thankful. Cash wouldn’t have healed me or altered my mental state so I didn’t go for it.

no it wasnt aimed at you, I thought the points you raised entirely reasonable.
It was aimed at acracer.

Showed the article to a mate who has had genuine PTSD after 6 tours in the likes of Afghanistan, Bosnia and Iraq as a Para.

He’s now out of the forces and has been on a course run by the charity Combat Stress to help himself. Part paid by himself, part funded by the charity. It mainly involves outdoor pursuits in the Orkneys with lots of other squaddies with similar (genuine) issues.

He suggested that seen as this clown has had a 1/2 million payout, she should get herself on the next course Combat Stress run and help herself.

Oh sorry – forgot. She’s a compensation chasing “victim”.

When you have been fired on, faced insurgents, roadside IEDs and seen mates blown up, then feel free to claim PTSD. Claiming you have it for a poor little hurt knee is frankly an insult to my mate and others like him who have genuinely got the condition after seeing things no man should.

Good to see Mail etc have achieved their goal.

What would some of you do if they’d printed a reasoned article explianing the salient points of the decision?

aracer – Member
From what I’ve read the negligence comes simply from failing to meet the target, nothing to do with why they failed to meet the target.

If they admitted negligence, then it needn’t be scrutinised.

convert – Member
Well that was an interesting conversation…..

I had a quick email conversation with someone who knew her at the NHM. Suffice to say most can’t be repeated on a public forum for fear of litigation/slander but a summary of ‘victim personality’ and ‘not the slightest bit surprised’ would be very fair. its only slander (or libel since it would be in writing) if it is untrue. If that’s the case it would probably be best to have kept it to yourself than “imply” there is some substance to it… …Mrs Berkow could probably provide some advice on “implications” in social media :smileyface:

Here is the full judgement. http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2014/286.html&query=Leigh+and+v+and+London+and+Ambulance&method=boolean As usual these things make a little more sense when you read the “logic”. It should be noted that the LAS admitted negligence, and the lawyers agreed that if that negligence contributed more than a negligible effect to the PTSD then the claimant would ‘win’. Both sides brought expert witnesses, the Judge concluded that the LAS expert was not as credible.

When you have been fired on, faced insurgents, roadside IEDs and seen mates blown up, then feel free to claim PTSD. Claiming you have it for a poor little hurt knee is frankly an insult to my mate and others like him who have genuinely got the condition after seeing things no man should.

so your mate has good ptsd whilst she has bad ptsd?

I know I know must ignore rubbish written on the internet

so your mate has good ptsd whilst she has bad ptsd?

I know I know must ignore rubbish written on the internet

The point I am making is that combat stress can easily lead to PTSD. A twisted knee is a bit of a stretch.

Jesus – on that basis plenty of us on here would be half a mill up if we shared this woman’s victim mentality and money grabbing nature.

Drac – Moderator
How do you define 17 minutes ‘late’?
Response targets.

The thing with this Drac, is that these are targets, not promises to attend in a specific time. It’s perhaps not publicised enough that cuts to the ambulance service, in many areas of the country, have left a virtually ineffective service that relies upon volunteers and the other emergency services. For example, if I as a Police Officer with (apparently) enhanced 1st aid skills and equipment, attend a medical emergency, the ambulance service claim this as them meeting their targets..!

Having suffered Post Traumatic Stress many years ago, I can sympathise with this woman, but to put her payout in context; whilst working in a shop I was subject of an armed robbery; one of the offenders hit me over the head with a brickie’s lump hammer, putting me in hospital and leaving me terrified to go outdoors. Granted this was 22 years ago, but I got a paltry £1k for the mental anguish and injury. Based on this, I think her payout is excessive, irrespective of her job. Furthermore, is she claiming from her employers for not facilitating her a to work from home?

The ambulance service didn’t cause her to get injured, and yes the failed to meet a target, but seriously? Half a million? How can that be right?

Firstly she didnt twist her knee she dislocated it, secondly many people suffer from depression when others shug off far worse things in life and get on with it I’m no expert but reckon ptsd may be similar. As I said I’ve waited in agony fir similar lengths of time with the same injury and been fine but this has no effect on her symptoms.

The thing with this Drac, is that these are targets, not promises. It’s perhaps not publicised enough that cuts to the ambulance service, in many areas of the country, have left a virtually ineffective service that relies upon volunteers and the other emergency services. For example, if I as a Police Officer with (apparently) enhanced 1st aid skills and equipment, attend a medical emergency, the ambulance service claim this as them meeting their targets..!

I’m know I work for the Ambulance Service.

What does PTSD stand for

I got the P piss T taking bit but am puzzled by the rest , Will have a think about it whilst bimbling round Sainsburys trying to avoid the icecream I’m going to drop, slip on then get a claim in

forced her to move to South Wales.

If that’s Newport or Barry that’s probably insufficient compensation and it’s no surprise that she has PTSD. 😉

The ambulance service didn’t cause her to get injured, and yes the failed to meet a target, but seriously? Half a million? How can that be right?

+1. I pay taxes for this. Worse, it’s an insult to people who have actually been injured and just got on with it.

Worse, it’s an insult to people who have actually been injured and just got on with it.

Absolutely.

Thanks for that. Interesting. It appears to hinge on:

“In a case where medical science cannot establish the probability that ‘but for’ an act of negligence the injury would not have happened but can establish that the contribution of the negligent cause was more than negligible, the ‘but for’ test is modified, and the claimant will succeed.”
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2008/883.html

So all the claimant has to establish is that the delay had a more than negligible effect on her injury, not that the injury would have been unlikely to have occurred without it. The judge accepted that she hadn’t proved the probability that she wouldn’t have developed PTSD if the ambulance had been on time.

It seems the judgement is then correct in the framework of the law, but I’m less than convinced the law is actually being applied correctly in this case – if you follow the case law down the chain, there are significant differences in the level of negligence of the previous cases cited in the earlier Court of Appeal judgement. Whilst the appeal court suggests the correct test is “anything greater than de minimis”, it seems that in all the cited cases the actual harm caused by negligence is substantial. Particularly interesting that one case cited in the appeal court case was actually dismissed by the House of Lords on the grounds that it wasn’t actually equivalent to the previous case. I wonder if we’ll see this judgement appealed and the law retested.

A quick question, poly – it seems that to find any full judgement I start at http://www.bailii.org/ – did you just do a search from there, or did you know to go to http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/ (and if so, how did you know the case was there)? Very useful for future discussions (and possibly past – I can think of a few where I’d like to see the full judgement rather than just what was reported).

I think that one of the most worrying aspects of this case is that it will potentially open the floodgates to others who want some easy money have suffered some kind of distress due to an ambulance not arriving within the set target time for the type of response required.
There’s plenty of slimed ambulance chasing lawyers who will no doubt see this as an opportunity to wring more money out of the system.

To summarise better than I did in my long post above. The law apparently says that if you suffer an injury, then any party which contributes to that in anything more than an insignificant amount is liable for the full amount of any losses incurred as a result of that injury.

The court agrees that the injury would probably have occurred even without the negligent delay, but because that delay contributed a small but not insignificant amount the ambulance service is liable for all costs incurred as a result of the injury, including those which she would have incurred if the ambulance had arrived on time.

Doesn’t seem quite right to me, but apparently that’s what the law says (at the moment…)

Seems insane, say you were a first aider and made a genuine mistake, you could be sued to hell and back…..

Interesting judgement. In terms of precedent, will open a can of worms in relation to ambulance delays and poor clinical outcomes litigation.

If you’re a stroke patient who doesn’t make it to hospital inside the ‘golden hour’ because the crew was 20 minutes late, will you claim on the basis that the delay caused a ‘not insignificant’ increase in your level of disability? Seems that the evidence base would be just as compelling.

It’s a bit of a weird standpoint that even a relatively minor component of a problem can potentially end up with the bill for the whole fandango.

IMO, the main problem for London Ambulance was that they folded on the question of whether exceeding the rather arbitrary NHS target time is ‘negligent’ in non life-threatening cases such as this. Also their medical expert was unconvincing, going from certainty to equivocation in his evidence.

PS Sounds like should could have sued the well-intentioned folk who restrained her on the bus, as it was this action which seemed to provoke most of her feelings of helplessness and claustrophobia.

To summarise better than I did in my long post above. The law apparently says that if you suffer an injury, then any party which contributes to that in anything more than an insignificant amount is liable for the full amount of any losses incurred as a result of that injury.

So in a way this is ‘just’ an unintended consequence of having a target for ambulances…

Not even sure that national targets are relevant – they tend to focus on ‘category A’ patients (who have a potentially life-threatening condition/injury).

This must be an internal target which is set by the LAS and presumably is broken fairly often, given that non life-threatening stuff will not be prioritised if there are multiple category A calls on the go.

footflaps – Member

Seems insane, say you were a first aider and made a genuine mistake, you could be sued to hell and back…..

Posted 1 hour ago # Report-Post

I believe there are separate laws in place to help protect first responders/first aiders, a similar scenario occurred years ago which threatened the existence of “first aid” as we know it.

Not even sure that national targets are relevant – they tend to focus on ‘category A’ patients (who have a potentially life-threatening condition/injury).

This must be an internal target which is set by the LAS and presumably is broken fairly often, given that non life-threatening stuff will not be prioritised if there are multiple category A calls on the go.

As far as I’m aware the Category C target time is 30 minutes. I’m not 100% certain on that though as I take no notice of the targets!

A quick question, poly – it seems that to find any full judgement I start at http://www.bailii.org/ – did you just do a search from there,

aracer – you can search at bailii with the names of the parties involved. Bear in mind that the cases you might be most interested in (e.g. Crown Court Dangerous Driving cases) do not normally result in written judgements – unless there is an appeal.

So in a way this is ‘just’ an unintended consequence of having a target for ambulances…

Or perhaps (being cynical) there is something to the fact that the LAS admitted negligence rather than debate this in court. I would not have expected failing to meet a target to be de facto negligence – so was there some internal ****-*p that they decided was better to keep out of the court as part of a calculated risk?

The precedents on which this decision is made actually appear to make sense – the original case this bit of case law appears to be founded on concerns somebody getting dermatitis due partly to being exposed to dust as part of their work (perfectly legal) and then having to go home with that dust still on their body because their employer didn’t have a shower (negligent). In that case I have to admit I’m totally happy with the employer getting the full hit. As I alluded above, there does seem a difference between that case and this, but not being a lawyer I’m struggling to put my finger on a quantifiable legal difference.

PS Sounds like should could have sued the well-intentioned folk who restrained her on the bus, as it was this action which seemed to provoke most of her feelings of helplessness and claustrophobia.

She probably could have done, and based on the same case law might have won the full amount of damages from them. I suspect they might not have £500k available though.

So if we’re finger pointing and claiming expenses, willl LAS be claiming against anyone that delayed their response? Boris for not dealing with congestion, utilities for digging up roads, numpty parked on double yellows and so on.

To summarise better than I did in my long post above. The law apparently says that if you suffer an injury, then any party which contributes to that in anything more than an insignificant amount is liable for the full amount of any losses incurred as a result of that injury.

Cool!, so taken the above reckoning into account i am due hundreds of thousands of pounds in compensation….bring it on…….the high life £££££££ here i come!

Car accident on a rural single track backwater road in 1991 whilst avoiding a driver of an oncoming car, unfortunately i later found out i was not actually insured to drive my mates car i was driving at the time – bugger!.

I offered to drive him home after a night out as he’d been drinking and i hadn’t (i raced moto-x at the time and had a national race the following day), i swerved to avoid an oncoming car driving with no headlights on a single track road (he was driving with lights out to scare his passengers) and i ended up taking to the verge to avoid him, through a dyke, down an embankment and smacked into a large oak tree, lay there for 8 hrs trapped in the car with shattered spine in two places, two punctured lungs, 7 broken ribs, internal bleeding which came out my mouth/ nose and corners of eyes, ruptured intestines, displaced kidneys, no movement at all from the upper chest down, fractures in collarbones, upper arms and hairline pelvic fractures.

The rural postman found me 8hrs after the accident and raised the alarm, the police and fire service turned up soon after and the police immediately tried to get me to breath into a breathalyser bag (negative of course) which further drove the ribs into my lungs and led into an arrest of sorts, i was aware of what was going on at the time and i can recall it clear to the exact word spoken to this day ( weird huh?), at which point the fire crew began cpr and managed to bring me back round whilst i was still trapped in the car and i found out later the crews in the fire service (who i knew well) dragged the two police officers away from me and sparked them out in no uncertain terms, the ambulance took over an hour to reach me and by this point i was in quite a bad way but they managed to stabilise me in the car and then the fire service started to cut me out. from initially being discovered to arriving in hospital took almost 3 hrs, so 11 hrs after the initial accident i finally arrived in hospital …..needless to say i did not receive a single penny of compensation, neither for the accident in question and neither for the after care i received and why should i?, the fire service did the best they could, the ambulance crew kept me alive and if it wasn’t for them i’d be dead, to be fair the police officers involved were a pair of pricks but that’s par for the course in my dealings with them so forget about that, apart from the fact they managed to **** up the investigation onto the other driver and he got away with it….of sorts anyway – my mates from the fishing boats had their own form of justice when i was laid up in the spinal unit for months on end and they went to work on his legs and wrists, i’ve certainly not lost any sleep over what happened to him – he **** deserved it, eye for an eye and all that.

And as for that compo claiming arsebag Ceri Leigh above?, if her ptsd is that bad then i guess her family better hide the paracetamol.

Not that difficult to guess what I was after 😉 – yes I’ve already tried and failed and realised it didn’t seem to have any of those. Pity, as whilst we don’t always agree on these cases I think you’ll appreciate that I prefer to have the full information (which might show that my preconceptions are wrong) rather than just what a journalist has written.

From the police presumably? Given this case law, I reckon you’d have a pretty good claim against them for the entirety of your suffering from that crash – were it not that I imagine there is a statute of limitations on this sort of thing.