Paula Bridge – Head of Clinical Negligence

Paula Bridge, Head of Clinical Negligence

Following on from the PIP scandal, new concerns are being raised over DePuy hip replacements.

DePuy replacements consist of metal on metal replacements which were recalled in 2010 due to their extremely high failure rates.

Previously concerns had been raised regarding the loosening of the implants and the risk of metal fragments working loose causing pain and mobility issues.

However, advisors to the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) have decided the advice should go further due to concerns that the devices could cause “systemic toxicity” in the body.

Class actions have begun in the USA and claims are increasing in the UK.

Any patients suffering abnormal pain or deteriorating hip function should immediately contact their surgeon and request an MRI scan or ultrasound to check for soft tissue reactions and loosening of components.

They should now also request tests to establish levels of cobalt and chromium in their blood. Increased levels of cobalt and chromium can be toxic to kidneys.

This is a worrying development coming so soon after the PIP publicity which once again calls into question the system of regulation of medical devices.

All patients who have had this device fitted whether they have experienced problems or not should have been recalled for advice.

If patients have any concerns they should contact me immediately on 0161 832 6131 or paula.bridge@ralli.co.uk and I will be happy to advise further.

The event sponsored by Grill on the Alley helped raise over £1000 for the Royal Manchester Children’s Hospital.

A total of 16 teams including Ralli, CBG Group, TheEword and Pannone took to the Lucozade Powerleague pitches on Tuesday 24^th January.

Ralli narrowly missed out on a place in the final after losing on penalties at the semi final stage.

Marketing Director for JCI Manchester, Robert Illidge, commented:

“The event was a huge success and I would like to thank everybody for taking part and our sponsors Grill on the Alley.

It’s always great to see local businesses coming together to raise much needed charity funds especially on a cold, wet, January evening.

We’re always looking for new ways to fundraise and encourage ideas from our members and the public.”

In June 2011 members of JCI Manchester, the personal development organisation for young professionals and entrepreneurs, completed the national 3 Peaks Challenge raising over £6,000 for RMCH.

Maria Penny – Associate & Personal Injury Solicitor

The BBC reports today that a man has been charged with allowing a dog to be dangerously out of control after a six-year-old girl was mauled in a north-east London park.

This is a very sad story and my thoughts go out to the little girl and her family.

Full details of the incident are not known and it is unclear at this stage whether the dog had any prior history of aggression or was temperamental but in any case will do very little to dispel the view held my many that such breeds of dog are dangerous.

I personally do not believe it is necessarily the breed and I refer to my previous thoughts following the purported attack on a television star recently – http://tinyurl.com/7vl5xb9

I will not seek to vilify the dog owner but this is an area of the law that to my mind needs review.

I am saddened to hear of the many fatalities and my heart goes out to those families still awaiting news of their loved ones.

Whilst it is too early to know why the ship ran aground, it is clear that a full investigation will have to take place and questions will need to be answered by the Italian authorities.

We need to understand whether this was down to human error or mechanical failures. At the moment there is a lot of speculation and conflicting reports in the press. Once the initially shock wears off, people are going to feel anger that this has happen and wanted to know exactly what went wrong.

The injured survivors are likely to need substantial medical and professional help to recover from their ordeal. Survivors are likely to have long-lasting emotional scars as well as their physical injuries.

I would urge anyone injured or with family members injured in the incident to speak to our specialist solicitors as soon as possible. It is important to contact our solicitors who have specialist knowledge of this area, the law and the specials rules and regulations which apply to accidents on-board ships.

Adrian Anderson (Partner and Head of the Corporate Department)

Poor Steve McDonald, he hasn’t had an easy life.

The famous cobbles have seen him become embroiled in schoolboy pranks, illegal activities, multiple marriages and various failed businesses.

Recently, Steve has had to deal with the breakdown of his relationship with his ex wife and ‘business partner’, Becky, who is hell bent on selling what she believes is her share of the Street Cars taxi company.

However, things are about to get better for Steve thanks to his shareholders agreement.

Where two or more people own a company, it is important that they enter into a shareholders agreement.  A shareholders agreement should have provisions dealing with all of the following.

Lets’ hope Steve has remembered to put them all in.

1. The advancing of money to the company (sometimes called “cash calls”)

2. The role of each shareholder and the amount of time they must spend on company business

3. A prohibition against transferring shares without giving co-shareholders first option

4. “tag” and “drag” rights on shares

5. A procedure to follow if the relationship breaks down

6. Non-competition provisions while agreement carries on and after a shareholder leaves

7. The authority and responsibility of each shareholder including right to sign cheques

8. The business plan of the company

9. Voting arrangements on specified important  issues

10. Giving of personal guarantees

11. Forfeiture of shares – ie confiscation in certain circumstances

12. Retirement and good and bad leaver provisions

In the absence of a shareholder agreement a solicitor would have to rely on a very inadequate statutory and common law set of rules.

Maria Penny – Associate & Personal Injury Solicitor

The Manchester Evening News reported today that Police are investigating an attempted attack on former Emmerdale star Roxanne Pallett using a Staffordshire bull terrier (http://tinyurl.com/6pxwbvr).

The review of legislation regarding dangerous dogs, currently enshrined in the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 and 1997 as amended, has been long overdue and pressure is mounting to either repeal current legislation with new, or amend it to make it more effective.

It is hoped new law would seek to impose tighter restrictions on those in charge of dogs, regardless of breed, to ensure that if a dog is dangerous or has history steps can be taken to monitor the same and impose sanctions in the event further incidences occur.  The same should also give the police and local authorities more powers to penalise those in breach to encourage responsible ownership.

One area overlooked in the current legislation is incidents on private property and the CWU is backing a call for change to protect postal workers and others who have to go on to private property in the course of their work.

The changes should aim to make owners and those in charge of dogs more accountable and it is thought local councils could monitor all complaints.  The changes should apply to all anti-social dogs, should not be breed specific, and move away from simply putting a dangerous dog down thereby allowing sanctions to be imposed as against the owner/person in control.

Certain dogs are used as weapons or status symbols and this will often mean a type of dog is prejudged to be dangerous.  An example is the Staffordshire bull terrier.  Such dogs have a gentle nature but have become a status of the younger generation and are now generally feared and thought of as being dangerous.  A complete shift in our culture and attitude towards dogs and dog ownership is needed but I remain pessimistic as to whether this will ever happen.

In most cases the way a dog is handled and raised is, in my opinion, the most important factor and I firmly believe any type of dog has the capacity to be dangerous and/or anti-social.

I am sure Ms Pallett found the whole incident very frightening but in this case, thankfully, she was not hurt.  Others are not so lucky.

Paula Bridge – Head of Clinical Negligence

In recent weeks I have spoken to women who are not sure if their implants are PIP or another brand.

If the original clinic has closed down then I would recommend those concerned to go to their GP and ask for a scan.

This will enable medical experts to advise whether the implants pose an immediate risk. It is important to remember that advice from the Department of Health has remained consistent that the immediate removal of implants is not necessary.

Of course those concerned need to be sure they have PIP implants and if in doubt they need to try and find their original records. Again this is something we can assist with as many surgeons have kept records of previous operations even though they no longer work for the same clinic.

If the scan shows an implant has ruptured then further action needs to be taken.

If the client cannot return to the original clinic for removal then they will need to consider a referral to the NHS. There is still some confusion as to whether the NHS will deal with patients who have had surgery for non reconstructive reasons.

For those who did have the surgery for reconstructive reasons the Government has helpfully now clarified the position.

Referrals can be made via your GP for medical reasons and I would urge those concerned to work closely with their GP in this regard. The problem occurs when the client wishes to have replacements.

If the clinic is no longer available or not one which has agreed to fund removal and replacement, the current position is the client will have to fund the replacement privately.

Nuffield Health have said that they will assist their patients with regards to removal but again questions remain over replacement. The Chairman of The Harley Medical Group said yesterday that replacement was simply not a viable economic option for them to consider.

We are advising clients in this position to see what other options they have. We are tracing insurers of those clinics which have closed down and considering options against the surgeons.

Cosmetic surgery is a service and the implants that are used in any procedure have to be fit for the purpose, be of a reasonable standard of quality and above all, be safe.

This is a developing area and hopefully with the gathering momentum, a solution will become available. It is also important to ensure regulation is increased within the cosmetic surgery industry to ensure this type of situation does not arise in the future.

James Reilly – Personal Injury Partner

David Cameron should be ashamed of himself with ill informed populist remarks (http://tinyurl.com/75m9lhj)

Health and Safety of workers is paramount and a laudable quality; after all it is the historical implementation and continued application of these standards that save employees lives and separate the British workplace from a Far East “sweat shop”.

Whilst we all agree that the UK economy should remain competitive perhaps the Prime Minister should focus on Government department’s procurement policy for major public projects and the money it wastes rather than becoming the PR representative of the insurance industry.

It is a recorded fact by the Government that the number of fatalities and injuries and therefore claims arising out of workplace accidents has dropped significantly.  The heavily discredited Lord Young confirmed as much in the report the Prime Minister commissioned.  The issue was the fear of litigation as a result of advertising and not the reality.

It is perhaps surprising that the only winners out of all the regulation and targeting of Health and Safety are the Government who as the largest employer in the country and the insurance industry. Employer’s liability insurance is compulsory. The premiums increase, despite the fact that only 2/3 of viable claims are pursued and the number of injuries is dropping.

If the liability for which insurance is compulsory is also further reduced who are the major and only beneficiaries; as call me cynical but I don’t believe that the government or the insurance industry will pass the savings on to the public.

On the basis that the government (and other politicians) and the Prime Minister keep fuelling the publicity of this proved and accepted false threat there will be detrimental effects as a result of the measures they intend to implement.  The main loser will be the injured victims of negligence who will find it much more difficult under the proposed reforms to bring legitimate claims and will have their damages reduced to pay for their legal fees through no fault of their own.

Equally it might provoke a dangerous relaxation of standards in the workplace at the expense of profits for the unscrupulously wealthy.  It is of course unheard of for politicians to misappropriate the public purse or bankers to be cavalier and expect a bail out from the taxpayer. It would appear that the banks/financial institutions who in reality are the insurers are going to get a 2nd undeserved windfall. Small businesses will lose by this ill informed self serving propaganda such as the high street solicitor whose entire practice and presence will be made uneconomic.

It is not illegal to advertise a service within the media and whilst some are sensitive about this aspect their concern is disproportionate.  The media, TV, newspapers as well as the derivative marketing agencies employ numerous people and the public become aware of a service whist having their news and entertainment outlets subsidised.

The only winners are the same tiny minority of individuals who are on the boards of the banks and insurance companies who will declare bigger bonuses at the expense of injured victims, the legal profession, the general public and the advertising companies.   Far from getting the UK economy going it is short sighted and likely to be detrimental to the economy as well as society.

Paula Bridge – Head of Clinical Negligence

We have had several enquiries from ladies worried over these stories which have been circulating since early 2010.

Our guidance is to return to your breast implant surgeon if you are concerned to find out whether your implants are PIP (Poly Implant Prothese) implants. It is important to have them regularly checked.

We have taken instructions from Patients where the implants have ruptured and they have had no option but to have them removed. Some have been able to have further replacements but many simply cannot afford to pay a second set of fees for the surgery.

The difficulty in pursuing the French company PIP, which exported its products to 66 countries is that they have gone into liquidation which has meant they are not in a position to satisfy judgements obtained against them for supplying defective implants.

Therefore we need to look at other avenues and consider pursuing the clinics or indeed the surgeons where these procedures took place.

If you have any concerns and wish to obtain further advice please contact me today on 0161 615 0699 or email enquiries@ralli.co.uk

Stephen Fox – Senior Partner

Yesterday, The prime minister David Cameron spoke to an audience of small businesses and entrepreneurs at Intuit UK in Maidenhead stating:

“To tackle the compensation culture and address the fear from businesses of being sued for trivial or excessive claims ­we will extend the current scheme that caps the amount that lawyers can earn from small value personal injury claims and reduce overall costs in cases funded by no win no fee¹ deals.

This will help bring down the cost of many cases and deter the speculative health and safety claims made against good businesses that would appear not to have done anything wrong.”

Will the government also act to ensure that Insurance companies identify the saving they make in compensation payments and legal fees and show transparently how it has been used to reduce premiums rather than just increase shareholders profits and senior employee’s remuneration packages?