• More than 107,000 people die per year from Asbestos related illness.
• It is the #1 work-related cause of death
• Deaths set to peak in 2016

Asbestos has come under tight controls in the past forty years and yet it’s still the number one cause of work-related deaths in the UK.  The nature of illnesses relating to asbestos such as mesothelioma and asbestosis are low-lying and tend to flare up years after an individual has been exposed to asbestos. This is why so many workers have been affected by past use of asbestos which wasn’t properly regulated. Indeed, in the UK asbestos related deaths aren’t set to peak until 2016, decades after the substance was used regularly in work place environment.  You’d think that this would be a lesson others could learn from, but in Australia for example, workers are still being regularly exposed to this harmful substance and this is not the only country putting citizens at risk.

 

Why is asbestos used?

 

By nature, asbestos is a cheap and effective building material which tempts a lot of countries to continue using it despite health warnings.  India especially is an aggressive importer of asbestos from Canada, whilst China imports the most asbestos of any country.  Similar to how asbestos was first used in Europe, it’s used in the Asia-Pacific region in all kinds of industries and for a variety of applications including construction, brake pads, gaskets and cloth.

 

Health guidelines are ignored

 

The problem isn’t a lack of health regulation in China, health laws exist but factories wilfully ignore guidelines meaning that 15,000 asbestos-related deaths are projected to occur by 2035.  In India no such guidelines exist as of yet which means that workers often don’t wear gloves or chemical suits.

 

Deaths due to asbestos

 

Currently more than 107,000 people die every year from asbestos-related diseases.  This is a high number, but the real worry over countries still dealing with asbestos is the long-term spectre it will cast over future health.

 

Not instant

 

Mesothelioma is a type of cancer with an especially poor prognosis, but one which can stay hidden for decades without any symptoms showing.  This means that asbestos exposure can spiral out of control without any evidence of the harmful effects it will have on a population in the future.

 

Yet to peak

 

In the UK, asbestos exposure peaked in 1963, and yet mortality rates won’t peak until 2016.  Other countries which are using asbestos without due caution then may end up paying the price way down the line.

If you’ve been affected by mesothelioma or asbestos related illness you can now claim asbestos compensation either from a former employer or from the government.

To find out more about making a compensation claim for asbestos contact ASD’s Solicitors today.

 

Related Resources

 

1. Busting the Mesothelioma myths.
2. Mesothelioma in Younger People: What’s the Risk?

+Richard Meggitt

The Leveson Inquiry came to its close in November with the publishing of Lord Leveson’s report after nearly a year of public hearings.  One of the catalysts which triggered the inquiry was the phone hacking scandal where pockets of the media were found to have hacked into various phones of both celebrities and normal citizens in order to source stories.  The scandal led to the downfall of News of the World and resulted in millions of pounds worth of compensation being handed out.  Lord Leveson has made various recommendations in his published report about media regulation and some of these affect how victims of media malpractice can claim compensation in the future.

Leveson’s arbitration service

Amongst the most significant recommendations, including the proposal for an independent self-regulatory body validated by legislation, Lord Leveson has recommended setting up an arbitration service to provide a cost-effective alternative to court proceedings when dealing with claims against the press.   Leveson’s arbitration service aims to protect access to justice for any individual that has a legitimate claim against the media regardless of their own means.  All newspapers will be expected to sign up to the scheme which will be regulated by the new self-regulatory body and claimants will be expected to pursue arbitration, rather than go to court, with the possibility of financial penalties being put in place if a claimant refuses to arbitrate.  The arbitration process will provide a legally binding conclusion and act as a genuine alternative to court.  Leveson believes “the process should be fair, quick and inexpensive, inquisitorial and free for complainants to use”.

Will it work?

In the wake of the Jackson reforms which makes changes to civil litigation funding and, some argue, will hamper the ordinary person’s access to justice, Leveson’s proposal is perceived as an opportunity to level out the playing field.

Director of the Centre for Ethics and Law at UCL Professor Richard Moorhead argues that the tribunals will inevitably serve the interests of those who “can afford to get lawyered up” i.e. the media and wealthy celebrities.  He argues that a separate regulator, like an Ombudsman, will truly protect access to justice.

+Richard Meggitt

With the banning of referral fees set to be introduced in April 2013, the Ministry of Justice is planning to increase application fees and remove the cap on annual fees to ensure resources for proper regulation as CMCs close down.  From April 2013 the amount of claims management companies is expected to significantly decrease as a ban on referral fees deals a hefty financial blow to the industry.

Referral fees ban

In an attempt to clean up the industry and reduce dubious activities, last year the Ministry of Justice announced a ban on referral fees to be introduced in April 2013.  Referral fees have led to insurance companies profiting by selling on details of potential PI claims to CMCs and law firms.  Many motorists were seeing premiums rapidly rise as a result and the overall cost of civil litigation is worryingly high.  Referral fees are also perceived at contributing to the number of spurious or fraudulent claims made and contributing to the reality, or consolidating the perception of, a “compensation culture”.

The banning of referral fees is predicted to result in the shutting down of many Claims Management Companies who rely heavily on referrals for their business.  A reduction in the amount of CMCs means a direct reduction in the funds available to regulate these kinds of companies which would leave the sector at risk of committing fraudulent practices.

Introducing Higher Fees

For this reason the Ministry of Justice is planning to increase the start-up fees for CMCs by 47% from 2013/2014.  The application fee will rise from £950 to £1,400.  MoJ have also proposed to remove the cap on annual fees for CMCS which currently stands at £30,000 for companies with contractual relationships with clients.  The Law Gazette reports that companies with a turnover of more than £132,653 will pay 0.49% of their turnover in annual fees; companies with a turnover of more than £1m will pay 0.332% and companies with a turnover above £5m will pay 0.24%.

The fees will be introduced in conjunction with new powers awarded to the financial Ombudsman to deal with complaints about CMCs.  The shake up to the personal injury sector is intending to improve service for the customer and reduce costs passed on to the consumer in light of the fact that 90% of all consumer complaints now relate to PI and CMCs.

 

+Richard Meggitt

• Young drivers more likely to make a catastrophic claim
• 76% agree restrictions should apply
• Talk of restricting amount of passengers for new driver

Whats it all about?

Recent reports on road traffic accident trends have led to calls from the Association of British Insurers to place restrictions on new and young drivers. The ABI carried out surveys in 2010 based on motor insurance claims relating to road traffic accidents which indicate that young drivers are over represented in accident statistics, but considered against recently released statistics from the department of transport the picture of dangerous young drivers becomes less clear. The ABI aren’t making modest recommendations but are we persecuting our young drivers unfairly and will introducing these kind of restrictions actually get us anywhere?

ABI’s report and the restrictions proposed

According to ABI young drivers are “grossly overrepresented in official accident figures”. A 2010 review by ABI showed that 17-24 year olds with two years or less driving experience are more likely to make a catastrophic claim involving life-changing injuries than newly qualified 37-44 year old drivers with the same experience. Young drivers are all more likely to make a catastrophic claim as opposed to a minor collision claim and the claim is more likely to include a greater number of people in the crash.

The report shows that crashes involving young drivers tend to occur:

• At night
• When driving round sharp bends at high speeds
• In bad driving conditions
• With passengers
• If the driver has a particular “attitude”

For this reason ABI have made the following recommendations:

• A minimum 12 month learning period before the test can be taken so that drivers have better practise and don’t rush to pass without getting proper experience on the road.
• A ban on intensive driving courses
• Lowering the age at which young people can learn to drive to 16 ½ years old.
• Limiting the number of young passengers that can be carried by a young driver
• Restrictions of driving during night-time hours
• Lowering of blood alcohol concentration for drivers aged between 17-24.

ABI stats against Government stats – what’s the real deal?

Though ABI’s statistics don’t in any sense contradict recently released Government statistics it’s good to take ABI’s findings in conjunction with Gov stats so we don’t end up persecuting our young drivers. According to the Department of Transport 2011 Annual Report on Road Causalities in Great Britain the number one cause of road accidents is ‘failed to look properly’ with ‘inexperience’ coming further down the list. Of course, these two aren’t necessarily separable; a young person could not look properly because of inexperience and in this instance the categorisation of which “contributing factor” is really at work is subjectively decided by the individual police officer.

The big picture

To consider ABI’s findings in the context of overall statistics ensures that we don’t unfairly persecute young drivers. Though young people are evidently more susceptible to accidents focus should be on working with young drivers to try and prevent fatal or life-changing accidents rather than perpetuating stereotypes which make young people feel alienated or hard done by, as ABI are keen to emphasise.

Would these restrictions work?

The department for transport have announced they are considering looking into the restriction of passengers for new drivers to prevent peer pressure egging on young people to drive dangerously. The restrictions themselves seem to be very popular with 76% agreeing that there should be some restrictions on young drivers after passing the driving test.

The difficulty may be how practical enforcing restrictions on who young people can take in their car might be. In real terms how viable is it to make a group of friends all going to the same place drive in a different car? Is this really what we want to promote?

Altering the driving test?

Alterations to the driving test experience can be more controlled as they happen before young drivers are let out on the road, but what will the cost be of trying enforce the other restrictions and how will they make young people feel? Speaking to The Telegraphy, executive director of the Parliamentary Advisory Committee for Transport Safety Robert emphasised the importance of education and instruction as key saying,

“As well as looking at post-test restrictions, we also need to improve driver training and instruction and the quality of learning. IN that way, we can build quality driver learning.”

Relevant Resources

1. Are Young Drivers Really More Likely to Crash?
2. Failure to wear Seatbelts: The Law
3. What to Do if You are Hit by an Uninsured or Untraced Driver

+Richard Meggitt

Justice Minister Helen Grant MP announced this week that the Government is to consult on reforming claims for mesothelioma.

In a written ministerial statement to MPs, Ms Grant said that the consultation will take place in spring 2013, and will focus on ‘introducing fixed legal fees for mesothelioma claims; a dedicated pre-action protocol for those claims and an electronic portal on which the claims will be registered’.

Ms Grant also announced that the consultation will include the review of the potential effects of the reforms of conditional fee agreements on mesothelioma claims, which was included in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. The Government has said it hopes to publish the outcome of the review in autumn 2013.

If you have been exposed to asbestos, or secondary asbestos and have contracted mesothelioma then speak to our experienced solicitors today about making a claim. You can make a workplace accident claim if you call on  0114 2678780, email Richard Meggitt at [email protected], or complete our online form today.

+Richard Meggitt

Injuries inflicted with needles and other sharp instruments in the healthcare sector could be avoided if regulatory loopholes were closed, campaigners said today.

In response to a consultation, the not-for-profit Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL) has called on the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) not to water down but to implement in full a European Directive to prevent so-called „sharp injuries‟.

“A medical worker who is pricked by a needle, for instance, can suffer life-changing consequences if he becomes infected with Hepatitis B or HIV,” said APIL president Karl Tonks.

“So it is imperative that proper measures are taken which help ensure that everything possible is done to prevent such incidents occurring.”

In its response, APIL stated that the draft regulations were ambiguous and contained loopholes which may leave some workers unprotected.

“If, as proposed, the regulations only apply to an employer whose „main activity‟ is healthcare, then an organisation which provides healthcare services as well as services in other sectors, like aviation for instance, may be exempt from the regulations altogether,” Karl went on. “Surely this would undermine the entire point of having regulations in the first place, as they are meant to ensure people’s safety across the board.”

Richard Meggitt, Solicitor for ASD, has acted for numerous clients injured by sharp instruments who weren’t employed in the health care profession.

 

 

+Richard Meggitt

Wednesday 12 December 2012 by John Hyde

The government’s whiplash reforms are an attack on access to justice, the legal profession and genuine victims, according to shadow justice minister Andy Slaughter.

Slaughter (pictured) accused the government, which unveiled its proposals on Tuesday, of ignoring root causes of problems with personal injury claims, such as cold calling and the behaviour of claims management companies.

Justice secretary Chris Grayling wants to create an independent panel of medical experts to diagnose whiplash and list the small claims limit from £1,000 to £5,000.

The proposals come a year after the government appeared to rule out increasing the small claims limit and ignored the recommendations of Sir Rupert Jackson, who wanted it to remain at £1,000 in his 2009 report on the civil justice system.

Slaughter told the Gazette it was ‘fanciful’ to think litigants could represent themselves on cases where the general damages were as high as £5,000.

He said his party would wait until the final reforms are established before deciding exactly what it would do in power, but a Labour government would ‘certainly want to tilt the scales back in favour of the victim’.

Slaughter said: ‘The government is using whiplash as a front for further restrictions in the provision of legal advice in road traffic accident claims, including ones which are medically and legally complex and serious.

‘It is odd that the government itself rejected raising the small claims limit for personal injury to £5,000 earlier this year, as have all previous reviews over the last 15 years, yet have now backtracked on this less than 12 months later.’

He added that accident victims will have to rely entirely on the insurance industry either to make them an offer or sell them legal insurance.

Whilst the Association of British Insurers has trumpeted the £2bn cost of whiplash claims, Slaughter pointed out that just 7% of those claims were thought to be fraudulent.

He added: ‘This risks being a windfall for insurers but at no stage have consumers been given any indication that their car insurance premiums will fall.’

The consultation is now open until 8 March.

If you’ve had a serious injury which led to whiplash, due to a traffic road accident, a workplace accident, a pedestrian, cyclists, or motorcyclists accident  and are considering making a claim, call 0114 2678780. Otherwise, email Richard Meggitt at [email protected], or complete our online form today.

Andy Slaughter

+Richard Meggitt

The government have recently made a U-turn on their plans to introduce the Supplementary Legal Aid Scheme which would have taken 25% of damages awarded for clinical negligence off victims.  The original concept was controversial to say the least, and the back down has been welcomed by a host of legal professionals and organisations.

The original concept

The ministry of justice proposed to bring a new scheme in 2013 which would take 25% of claimants’ medical negligence compensation off them as a blanket rule.  The scheme was intended to recoup some of the £2 billion a year spent on legal aid in England and Wales, the majority of which is spent on lawyers defending individuals facing criminal charges.   The scheme was designed to make claiming legal aid less attractive thereby further reducing the bill.  It would have affected at least 5,000 families each year.

Campaigners claimed the scheme was tantamount to “raiding” funds earmarked for the care of victims of clinical negligence, many of whom who would desperately need the financial assistance compensation would offer to pay for proper care.

Why has the government backed down?

Outcry from campaigners who deemed the scheme as nothing more than using the money of the vulnerable to finance their own department provoked the MoJ into reassessing the proposal.  After a “stakeholder engagement exercise” the Ministry of Justice altered their plan, but are still committed to cutting the budget for legal aid.  A Ministry of Justice spokesman said,

“At more than £2bn per year, we have one of the most expensive legal aid systems in the world which in the current financial climate we just cannot continue to afford.

Our reforms target legal aid at the people who need legal support the most, and on the most serious cases. This means taxpayers will know their money is really helping people, and is not fuelling unnecessary legal action. We estimate the legal aid budget will be cut by £320m in 2014/15 as a result of our reforms.” – telegraph.co.uk

Chief executive of patients’ charity Action against Medical Accidents Peter Walsh said:

“We are grateful to the new ministers at the MoJ for recognising the gross unfairness and irrationality of their predecessors’ plans.

We hope that this more enlightened approach will lead to further changes to protect access to justice for victims of clinical negligence. It beggars belief that their predecessors were prepared to raid the damages of children brain-damaged by clinical negligence to subsidise their department.” – lawgazette.co.uk

Changes that will happen

Although the government have decided not to implement the 25% damages change there will be changes to certain aspects of legal aid as follows:

• Scope
• Community Legal Advice
• Exceptional Cases Funding

The Ministry of Justice have also not ruled out the possibility of introducing the originally proposed changes at a later stage.

+Richard Meggitt