The expense and trouble of fending off lawyers making injury claims

SIR – David Pidgen’s experience, as a small employer dealing with a claim from injury lawyers (Letters, August 25), resonated with me.

For my company’s first 20 years there were no injury claims. Incidents of injury to employees were dealt with fairly by the company’s insurance.

In the late Eighties there was a rash of claims from injury lawyers who, it would seem, got access to employees’ addresses. Their offer was simple: any injury, however small, real or imagined, could result in “compensation”.

Their method was to demand from the company, at the time, around £2,000. A court would no doubt throw out the claim, but we learnt that defence was more expensive and timeconsuming than paying up.

For a company able to afford it defence is the best tactic. It stops them targeting you. For smaller firms this is a real problem. The Government should surely at least investigate. Denis Kearney Lostwithiel, Cornwall SIR – I have sympathy with Mr Pidgen, but I must assume that the solicitors for the alleged claimant withdrew their claim after they realised they were suing the wrong defendant.

In such a case, Part 38.6 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (that govern civil court cases) says: “Unless the court orders otherwise, a claimant who discontinues is liable for the costs which a defendant against whom the claimant discontinues incurred on or before the date on which notice of discontinuance was served on the defendant”.

In short, Mr Pidgen should be paid his costs, and I would suggest he reminds the solicitor of this or seeks his own legal advice on the matter. Timothy Wigglesworth Newcastle upon Tyne SIR – Medical defence organisations rebut over three quarters of the claims that our members face without making any payment (“Huge pay rises for chiefs who defend doctors as NHS blunders rise”, report, August 24).

The number of doctors receiving the most severe penalties at the General Medical Council has proportionately never been lower. What drives the increasing number of claims – and the resultant anxiety and organisational disruption for professionals – is a legal system which gives claimant solicitors every incentive to rack up costs and little or no incentive to select and prepare the most meritorious cases rapidly and effectively.

The Government has moved rather too slowly on its own welcome proposals on capping the level of legal costs that can be recovered in medical negligence cases.

Nor has it pursued ideas for tort reform which have been on the table for some time.

It’s time for action on these issues. The continued delay saps NHS resources and morale alike. Chris Kenny Chief Executive, Medical and Dental Defence Union of Scotland Glasgow