Cervical cancer vaccine

The government has changed its mind over which vaccine to supply to teenage girls since the introduction in 2008.

The UK government may have chosen the least cost-effective vaccine to immunise teenage girls against viruses that cause cervical cancer, a data study suggests.

In 2008, the Department of Health picked the cheaper of two options - a vaccine called Cervarix.

But the Health Protection Agency (HPA) concludes that a different vaccine, Gardasil, could provide better value.

Cervarix would need to be £19 to £35 cheaper to match Gardasil's payback.

Although it is not known what deal the government was able to strike with GSK, the pharmaceutical company that manufactures Cervarix, the NHS list price for the drug is £80.50 per dose.

Graystons Solicitors is concerned that the wrong decision was made initially and is pleased that the government has now decided to vaccinate young girls with Gardasil. We hope that the girls vaccinated in the mean time do not suffer any ill effects by not being protected against genital warts.

Compensation for Brain damage

The parents of Amy Smith, now 8 years old have secured a settlement of £9 million pounds in compensation for her injuries.
Amy suffered severe brain damage as a result of a lack of oxygen during her birth at Northwick Park hospital in North London..
Amy will require constant care for the rest of her life and suffers from Cerabal palsey.
The hospital accepted that it had been negligent in it's treatment of Amy. Her parents brought a personal injury claim on her behalf and the money will enable her parents to make alterations to the family home and pay for the around the clock care she requires.

Graystons Solicitors is a member of the Brain Injury Group and are able to represents claiments in this area.

Graystons holds a legal Aid certificate for clinical and medical negligence.

AVMA legal aid concerns

Graystons Solicitors as a member of AVMA and a holder of a legal aid franchise was interested to read the press release from AVMA about plans to cut legal aid for clinical negligence.

PRESS RELEASE: 09 January 2012 -

PLAN TO CUT LEGAL AID FOR CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE WOULD COST THE TAXPAYER MILLIONS, INDEPENDENT RESEARCH FINDS

Knock on costs estimated at THREE times predicted government saving

Cutting legal aid for those who have suffered clinical negligence would cost the Government (i.e. the taxpayer), millions of pounds more that it would save Ken Clarke’s Ministry of Justice (MoJ), confirms independent research by Kings College published today by the Law Society.

Unintended Consequences: the cost of the Government’s Legal Aid Reforms

("the Report") vindicates what campaigners Action against Medical Accidents (AvMA – the charity for patient safety and justice) have been saying since the proposal, one of a host of controversial cuts contained in the Legal Aid Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill, was announced.

The MoJ claims it would save £10.5 million pounds by taking clinical negligence out of scope for legal aid, but the Report states that in fact a net loss of around £18m will be a startling consequence. This, will, in most part, be shouldered by the NHS because it would have to pay for expensive after the event insurance under the proposed new system whereas under legal aid this is not necessary.

The NHS Litigation Authority itself has already registered opposition to these cuts stating that legal aid is by far the fairest and most economical way to fund these claims; and that Lord Justice Jackson, architect of the Government’s controversial reforms to Conditional Fee Agreements (CFAs or "no win, no fee" agreements), predicated his proposals on there being a system of legal aid still in place. He has said that clinical negligence in particular should remain in scope for legal aid.

Now, the Government faces a rebellion and possible defeat in the Lords unless it drops its plan. Influential Liberal Democrat peers Lord Carlile and Lord Thomas are championing an amendment to keep clinical negligence in scope for legal aid. The Bill is due to be debated on January 10^th.

Peter Walsh, Chief Executive of AvMA said:

"Cutting legal aid for clinical negligence is just bonkers whichever way you look at it. Either the Government is being deeply cynical and people injured by clinical negligence simply won’t be able to access justice, or the taxpayer and the NHS will be hit hard at a time it can least afford it. As the Report states, ‘there is certainly no economic justification for these changes’ (para 9.4.5)".

Walsh continues, "The Report’s findings also validate our decision to launch Judicial Review proceedings in which we contend that the MOJs consultation, culminating in the Response of 21 June 2011, was manifestly flawed."

One of the Report’s key conclusions highlights ‘the lack of robust data on numerous elements of the Civil justice system’(9.4.5), echoing AvMA’s grave concerns about the evidence the government used or had access to when supplying reasons for its Response. As a result of its findings, the Report importantly insists that ‘the government addresses the Justice Select Committee’s request for a full and proper appraisal of the knock-on costs before these changes are enacted’. (9.4.7)

Walsh concludes, "It is evident and shown in this Report, that the government has failed to prove two of its key assumptions supporting its proposals, these being, that the new regime will result in significant savings or that the potential savings alone justify the proposed changes."

AvMA point out that there are even further unintended consequences and costs of cutting legal aid for clinical negligence. The patient safety experts are concerned that if people are unable to pursue claims then errors will not come to light and opportunities for improving patient safety missed. This would result in immeasurable human cost as well as huge costs for the NHS. Further, the clinical negligence legal market would be thrown open to non specialist solicitors and claims farmers, with none of the quality control afforded by publicly funded legal aid.

ENDS

PIP Breast Implants

There has been concern raised over the safety of PIP breast impants, as sub-standard silicon has been used and the implants are more prone to rupture. The French government has advised the removal of the implants as they believe there is some evidence to link the breast implants to rare cancers. So far the British government are saying there is no need for removal. If you have concerns about your implants and are worried, contact Graystons Solicitors. We specialise in medical negligence and you will be able to discuss your concerns in confidence with female solicitors.

Access to justice for the elderly

Recent press coverage has highlighted problems facing the elderly whilst in hospital. Older people are vastly under represented when it comes to complaining  about their treatment. Graystons Solicitors would like to redress the balance and help older people, that feel they have suffered a medical accident or misdiagnosis or hospital error, to make a claim. Often the elderly may apply for legal aid which they may find difficult to understand. Graystons has the expertise to help them through this process. Graystons Solicitors has caring,experienced lawyers that specialise in medical negligence and will be able to help the elderly get justice.

Brain Injury Group

Bebington’s Graytons Solicitors CELEBRATES SUCCESS

OF THE AWARD-WINNING BRAIN INJURY GROUP

Graystons Solicitors based in Bebington is celebrating the success of the Brain Injury Group – of which it is a member – that won an award for innovation and inspiration on Thursday, November 10 2011.  The United Kingdom Acquired Brain Injury Forum (UKABIF) Awards are held annually and this year the co-founder of the Brain Injury Group, catastrophic injury solicitor Francis Lacy Scott, gained recognition for this innovative group by being named the UKABIF Lawyer Innovator of the Year.

Graystons was one of the founding members when the Brain Injury Group was formed in April this year.  “We are delighted to see the Brain Injury Group gain recognition for its innovation in the field of brain injury,” says Julie Grayston. “We joined the Group in the belief it can bring about significant benefits in the way brain injury claims and rehabilitation are carried out and it’s good to see this inspirational group has won professional praise and an Award.”

The Brain Injury Group is a national network of specialist brain injury lawyers working in tandem with a range of other professionals involved in welfare, financial and family services to support people with acquired brain injuries.  Bringing all these elements together under the Brain Injury Group banner creates a clear route for brain injured clients and their families to access the support they need from accident through rehabilitation and on to compensation.  By having members across the country, the Brain Injury Group ensures its

Clients and their families can find specialist brain injury advice and a full range of support services close to home.

When presenting the Award Bill Braithwaite QC said: “The creation and development of the Brain Injury Group will doubtless be a significant step forwards in providing an improved service to all those who suffer serious brain injury.”

www.braininjurygroup.co.uk

For more information about Graystons Solicitors contact:

enquiries@graystons.co.uk Tel: 0151 645 0055

For more information about the Brain Injury Group, contact:

Katherine Selby, PR Workshop, 020 8657 4422, Katherine@prworkshop.co.uk

Charity Quiz Leukaemia and Lymphoma

A team from Graystons "Julies Ghoulies" took part in a Halloween charity quiz on 26th October 2011.

The quiz was held in Alexanders wine bar in Chester and hosted by Bennett Brooks. Graystons took 2nd place and are busy swotting up incase of a rematch. The evening raised £3000 for the charities.