AIBU to think this maternity negligence payout seems disproportionately high

Interestingly, the NZ system still allows for people to sue for exemplary damages if they want to. It's discussed in this article, along with lots of other relevant stuff

https://jhmhp.amegroups.org/article/view/9767/html

The numbers of successful claims are pretty low OP, which is seen as one of the problems with the system.

YABU.

The child is permanently disabled through negligence.

This amount will have been calculated to provide 24 hour care to her for life and to compensate for a lifetime loss of earnings. Additionally there will be compensation to the parents for the mistakes made, but the bulk of it will be lifetime care costs which would not have been needed had the hospital not made mistakes

I completely agree with you that it does feel unfair to families in this situation by chance. At the same time I can also see if, through negligence, this was done to your child,you absolutely should be compensated. Honestly we need much better services so that families wouldn't be in a better position by taking nhs trust to court and winning but that's unlikely to ever happen.

I studied a chapter on the value of life in a recent OU economics degree. Families broadly stay economically static. So the children of doctors will likely become doctors and children of cleaners will likely work in the low paid service sector. That isn't to say there aren't anomalies. But the "economic value" of a person does differ based on their families circumstances where there is nothing else to go off.

In adult insurance claims the amount paid out varies based on actual earnings.

The lawyers will get a healthy cut because this process takes several years.

I think there are two separate elements to this:

That money is an appropriate amount IMO for the errors made and the result.

But I do also think it can be hard to reconcile with the many people who have children with similar or even worse additional needs who are struggling to keep their heads above water financially.

If it costs this much to provide appropriate care then what about all the other children who have similar conditions but don’t have £28m?

So my issue isn’t about the money these parents got, they absolutely deserve it and errors of this magnitude need to be properly accounted for, but I think it does shine a light on how desperately unfair life is for so many people who are also in this situation through not fault of their own, there’s just no way to claim money from the vagaries of nature.

What is it specifically you think is disproportionate about the amount paid here OP?

There's certainly room to talk about the pros and cons of a more adversarial v no fault system, and the way in which NHS Trusts are incentivised to deny at every step of the process racks up higher legal costs. But you're not being very clear about what you want here, because you also appear to think some of the money for this severely disabled child's care needs ought to be redistributed to people who have weaker cases, and in most instances will have lower needs. That's bizarre.

If you researched the system in New Zealand you would also find it has a lot of problems including under compensation and the costs involved in funding it. The key to reducing compensation payments is to avoid the injury in the first place - better staff, more resources, and genuine learning from previous mistakes.

One of my closest friends is currently going through this process. Her DS was brain damaged at birth through NHS negligence.

He will never be able to walk or talk. He is now 5 years old and is still fed through a tube as he can’t even swallow.

My friend is under 5ft tall so struggles to even lift him already.

He will constantly need 24 hour care for the rest of his life and of course will never be able to work. Including lots of specialist equipment.

The fact that you would be bitter amount his parents getting such a payout is awful.

These amounts are for lifelong care, she will need support and care throughout her life, which doesn't come cheap at all. It even says her mobility will get worse.
A friend works for a head injury charity (which includes lack of oxygen at birth) and says the one off payouts of several million quite often run out.

It is not a one off payout though. It is £22500 for 10 years and £335000 thereafter. The child needs ongoing care and constant supervision and is predicted to lose mobility.

Care is costly. Constant supervision is around-the-clock care with the need for someone to be supervising the child 24 hours per day.

As mobility reduces and the child grows, two carers may be required for safe handling and lifting and this will increase care costs.

It is likely one or both parents will provide most of this care therefore restricting their availability for paid employment. The parents will also need to sleep. 24 hour care means someone needs to be awake and alert. Day or overnight care is likely to be sourced from qualified and regulated care providers and this provision is costly.

This case is not about any other negligence case. It is about this child, the impact of medical negligence and the financial settlement awarded. It seems crass to question the award when the reality is a child had a life-changing traumatic birth through negligence.

I think they would rather have a child who didn't have lifelong brain damage than £28 million. This is not something to care about compared to the MANY things wrong in our society.

That poor family, what might have been..

Do you have so little an imagination that you can't possibly work out why that award was given?

If you look at the breakdown of the payment you see that there is a one off payment of £8m , which I assume includes damages to the parents for stress, loss of earnings, plus wherewithal to buy a fully adapted house etc etc. it sounds a lot but a lump sum is needed to set systems in place.

Then there will be annual payments of £200,000 plus for ten years. If you take into account the loss of earnings for the parents, plus the cost of carers, additional living expenses etc that doesn’t seem overly generous to me.

Then further annual payments in perpetuity for the child, adolescent,adult the girl will become. Again , a life time of 24 hour care, living expenses etc.

It sounds a lot, but how much do you think Michael Schumacher’s family have paid over the years he has been alive? No one knows this child’s life expectancy, but she deserves good care.

Of all the things to be jealous of…

I hope that this large sum means that the Trust will actually learn lessons and future babies will not be at risk.

The parents won't be living it large on the money awarded to the child, it will be managed by specialist solicitors who will decide if the spending is appropriate.

If you and your child were failed so badly by the NHS that they needed lifetime care, would you be so quick to want to 'share' the money?

It’s not like they can take the money and head off for a life in Monaco.

The money is for the young person involved, and will be used towards the cost of care. The spend will be monitored to make sure that this is what is is spent on.

Care will become increasingly expensive as they get older, and have fewer and fewer things provided by the local authority.

There is also an option to review the amount if it turns out they don’t need as high a level of care that was presented in court

YABVU To get a payout like that then there must be clear evidence of nhs fault, no doubt at all. The NHS will fight very hard to avoid admitting blame so in this case it must have been clear there was fault in the care provided. Lifetime care, specialist input and treatment is expensive.

I find it hard to get worked up about a child being 'compensated' for suffering a devastating injury due to negligence. I say compensated, but nobody would choose this money over being born healthy. She gets the money over others because it was the NHS fault she was injured. It only gets to 28 million if she lives a long time otherwise those annual payments stop.

When there’s a valid case solicitors will often take it on without upfront payment.

Maybe they should have consulted with you, first, on the value of the life of their child?

But the girl will never be able to work.

One of her parents will also probably never be able to work, or will have to reduce hours/career oppurtunities.

She will most likely need many adaptations and treatments to improve her quality of life, many of which are either not available or not good enough when provided by the NHS.

They will have to worry about who takes care of her after they are gone. Some carers are wonderful, some are abysmal, some don't care at all, and some are abusive.

If this was caused by NHS negligence, and this girl and her family would otherwise have had a normal life, then yes this money is proportionate.

I'm sure those parents would have much rather their daughter not have gone through that.