MW Solicitors Personal Injury Department is proud to support National Road Victim Month recognising and supporting the families of loved ones who have been killed or injured on our roads.


Joanna Bailey
Joanna Bailey
Partner - Head of Personal Injury

Our wealth of experience as expert Personal Injury lawyers is recognised and highly regarded by the Legal 500. We are members of the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL).  Our Head of Department is both an Assessor and a Member of the Law Society Personal Injury Accreditation Scheme.

In the year ending June 2018 (Gov.uk) there were 165,100 reported casualties including 26,610 people killed or seriously injured.   Whilst this decrease from 2017 is to be welcomed, road crashes remain a major cause of death and injury in the UK.

We Can Help

MW Solicitors Personal Injury Team are dedicated and expert specialist Personal Injury solicitors who strive to get you the financial support that makes a real difference to the long-term recovery of accident victims and the security of their family.  In July 2019 our Personal Injury Team secured an award of £6.5 million approved by the Court for a road traffic collision victim. 

We are “Small enough to care and big enough to make a difference”.  If you would like to speak to a specialist to discuss your case call us today on 0203 551 8500 or fill out our Contact Us form to arrange a call back.

NHS

Andrew Bentham and Ben Collins QC (old Square Chambers) featured in the April edition of the AvMA Lawyers Service Newsletter published on 3rd April 2019.


Andrew Bentham
Andrew Bentham
Partner - Injury

Despite the challenges of practising in healthcare law, the resilience, commitment and dedication claimant clinical negligence lawyers show in doing their best for their clients continues.

Andrew Bentham at McMillan Williams and Ben Collins QC at Old Square Chambers case of Asante v Guy’s & St Thomas’ Hospital NHS Foundation Trust [2018] EWHC 2578 (QB), is a good example of what can be achieved even when the odds appear to be stacked against the claimant.

To read the article (Page 7) published by AvMa, please click here.

AvMA (Action versus Medical Accidents) are the UK Charity for patient safety & justice.  They work closely with patients and their families/friends, the groups that represent them, healthcare organisations and health professionals, government, charities and lawyers to improve patient safety, fairness and access to justice.

We Can Help

At MW, our mission is "To make quality legal services accessible to everyone", including those who have suffered at the hands of medical professionals.

If you would like to speak to our team of specialist Clinical Negligence or Personal Injury Solicitors to discuss your case, call us today on 0203 551 8500 or use our Contact Us form to tell us more about your case and arrange a callback.

 

Coroners Court

 


Andrew Bentham
Andrew Bentham
Partner - Injury

The issue of public funding for legal representation at inquests has been in the news a lot recently.  Legal Aid funding is not automatically granted at inquests except in ‘exceptional circumstances’.  Legal aid guidelines say that funding for a family at an inquest requires there to be a ‘wider interest’. The family of teenager, Molly Russell, who took her own life after viewing material about suicide and self-harm on social media was initially refused funding to pay for legal advice at her inquest.  It is understood that one of the reasons given by the Legal Aid Agency for the refusal was that it would not lead to significant and material benefits to a large cohort of specific persons.  Following an appeal against the decision legal aid funding has since been granted for the inquest, however this does demonstrate the difficulties encountered.  Unfortunately, many families are unsuccessful in obtaining legal aid funding and find that they have to represent themselves at the inquest, when the other side have experienced legal representation. 

A report, ‘The Patronising Disposition of Unaccountable Power’, was commissioned by the Home Office in 2017. The Right Reverend James Jones, Chair of the Hillsborough Independent Panel and the Home Secretary’s advisor on Hillsborough, emphasised a ‘pressing need’ for bereaved families to receive publicly funded legal representation at inquests where public bodies were legally represented.

The Ministry of Justice carried out a review of the current availability of legal aid and confirmed on the 7th February 2019 that it would not introduce automatic public funding where the state was represented.  Inquest, a campaign charity, had called for automatic non-means tested legal aid funding to families for specialist representation immediately after a state-related death.   

The Ministry confirmed that the purpose of means testing served to determine the allocation of taxpayers’ money to those most in need, for the most serious cases in which legal advice or representation was justified.  However, following a freedom of Information request the charity, Inquest, has obtained shocking data demonstrating that in 2017 the Ministry of Justice spent £4.2m on the prison and probation service for legal representation at inquests for prisoner deaths, while the relatives of the deceased were granted just £92,000 through the Legal Aid Agency’s exceptional funding scheme.  These figures demonstrate the significant inequality of arms experienced by bereaved and grieving families following a state-related death.

Yesterday, the issue of public funding at inquests was the subject of a Westminster Hall debate in Parliament.  Labour MP, Ms Stephanie Peacock, noted

'On the one hand, state bodies and representatives are equipped with access to unlimited funds and resources - the best experts and the best legal teams. On the other hand, vulnerable families in the midst of grief are forced to navigate a complex and alien application process that is provided with the bare minimum of support - indeed, most people will not even receive that.'

Conservative MP, Mr Tim Loughton, confirmed that the only parties whose legal representation would not be paid for at a forthcoming inquest over the 2015 Shoreham Airshow crash were the families of the 11 victims, which he said was a ‘travesty of justice’.

MW Solicitors passionately believes that bereaved families should be entitled to legal representation at an Inquest.  The recent figures demonstrate the significant and alarming disparity in funding for legal representation and highlights the need for equality of arms between families and the state. 

We Can Help

At MW Solicitors, our mission is "To make quality legal services accessible to everyone" including bereaved families who deserve to know the circumstances of their loved ones death.

If you would like to speak to a professional to discuss your case call us today on 0203 551 8500 or use our Contact Us form to arrange a call back.

Coniston

MW Solicitors colleagues Stephanie Clark and Rupal Patel are proud to participate in Headway’s ‘Go Wild for Headway’ Challenge.


Stephanie Clark
Stephanie Clark
Trainee Solicitor

This two day corporate challenge consists of a 20km hike, a 30ft waterfall jump, scrambling & lots of other height-related activities set in beautiful Coniston and Lake Windermere at the heart of the Lake District.

About Headway

Headway is the UK-wide charity that works to improve life after brain injury by providing vital support and information services through its network of Headway groups and branches across the UK and Channel Islands provides a wide range of services including rehabilitation programmes, carer support, social re-integration, community outreach and respite care to survivors and families in their own communities.

Headway's local groups and branches work hard to raise funds at a local level to continue to provide and develop the services they offer.


Rupal Patel
Rupal Patel
Solicitor - Health & Injury

We Can Help

At MW, our mission is "To make quality legal services accessible to everyone", including those who have suffered an Acquired Brian Injury.  We will arrange a specialist Brain Injury Case Manager to help plan and implement a rehabilitation package which can incorporate your health, psychological, educational or occupational needs.   We will work with medical, clinical and other experts to value your past and most importantly, future needs, such as personal and medical care, income, accommodation and transport.

Where possible we will secure interim payments to assist with day to day and rehabilitation needs throughout the course of your claim.

If you would like to speak to our team of specialist Personal Injury Solicitors to discuss your case, call us today on 0203 551 8500 or use our Contact Us page to arrange a callback.

Complex Regional Pain Syndrome

Following our hosting of the inaugural London and South East Burning Nights Support Group meeting in October last year, MW Solicitors is honoured to join Burning Nights' panel of specialist solicitors.

Complex Regional Pain Syndrome

Burning Nights is a charity dedicated to raising awareness and supporting people affected by a poorly understood nerve condition, Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS).

CRPS can cause a person to experience persistent, severe and debilitating pain along with other symptoms. The condition may develop after an injury, surgery, stroke or heart attack, but the pain is out of proportion with the severity of the initial injury or trauma. Over 65% of cases are caused by soft tissue injuries. The cause of Complex Regional Pain Syndrome isn’t clearly understood and CRPS awareness in the UK is low. However the earlier a diagnosis of CRPS is given, the better the prognosis is for a patient.

There is no cure for Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS).  It is a chronic and life-changing condition.  There is a range of treatments available to help manage symptoms, including physiotherapy and occupational therapy, psychological therapy, medication, regional and lumbar blocks, neurostimulators, implants, alternative therapy and pain management programmes.

We Can Help

MW acts for individuals suffering from CRPS which has developed following an injury that wasn’t their fault. Instructing a specialist CRPS solicitor who properly understands the condition allows our clients to feel supported throughout the legal process.

At MW Solicitors, Our Mission is "To make quality legal services accessible to everyone" including those suffering from CRPS which has developed following injury. We provide expert support and guidance in what will be difficult and challenging times and put you in touch with other organisations that can help such as BURNING NIGHTS.  Based on our wealth of experience we will  seek to achieve a financial result that makes a real difference to your long-term security as we as providing the care and assistance you need. .

If you would like to talk to us about your case today call  us on 020 3551 8500 or use our Contact Us page

head injury x-ray

 


Philip Scarles
Philip Scarles
Solicitor - Health & Injury

If an employee is injured at work during working hours, a negligent employer will be held accountable for any injuries and losses that are suffered as a result.

However, what happens if an employee sustains injuries in an accident that occurs outside the usual place of work, and outside their normal working hours? Is an employer still liable for the accident?

Bellman v Northampton Recruitment Limited

This question was central to the case of Bellman v Northampton Recruitment Limited. Mr Bellman was employed by Northampton Recruitment Limited as a sales manager. His duties included recruiting drivers and placing them with clients. The managing director was Mr Major.

In December 2011 the company held a Christmas party at a golf club. The party ended at around midnight, after which Mr Major suggested further drinks at a nearby hotel and paid for everyone’s taxis. This was not a pre-planned extension of the party at the golf club, but most of the guests went anyway.

At around 2am, the conversation turned to work. Mr Bellman asked Mr Major about a new colleague, Mr Kelly. It was understood that Mr Kelly was being paid substantially more than anyone else. This line of questioning annoyed Mr Major. He lost his temper and punched Mr Bellman who fell down. Mr Bellman stood back up, only to be hit again by Mr Major, this time knocking him out. He fell straight back and hit his head on the ground, resulting in a traumatic brain injury.

The Trial

Mr Bellman pursued a personal injury claim against his employer, on the basis that Northampton Recruitment Limited was liable for Mr Major’s actions.

However, at the trial in 2016, the judge ruled that the assault had taken place outside of work. This was largely because the incident had occurred at the unplanned after-party, rather than the organised Christmas party. As a result, Mr Bellman’s work accident claim was dismissed. 

The Appeal

The solicitors acting on behalf of Mr Bellman appealed this decision. They argued that Mr Major’s position as managing director was connected to his wrongful conduct. Further, it was argued that the trial judge had failed to take into account the nature of Mr Major’s job, and the power and authority entrusted to him over employees.

The Court of Appeal agreed and held that despite the time and place, Mr Major was acting in his role as managing director, and was exercising authority over employees. He then mis-used his position when his managerial decisions were challenged. The appeal was allowed.

This decision provides useful guidance on the extent to which an employer can be vicariously liable for an employee’s accident. Therefore even if an employee is injured outside of work and outside of normal working hours, there could be grounds for a work accident claim.

We Can Help

At MW Solicitors we have many years’ experience of undertaking personal injury claims for clients who have suffered serious injuries from accidents at work.

If you have suffered a serious injury at work and have not yet instructed a solicitor, or if you have an ongoing claim and are unhappy with the way the case is progressing, our expert Personal Injury Solicitors are waiting to talk to you.
Don't delay, call us today on 0203 551 8500 or use our Contact Us form to arrange a callback.







NHS

 

The Clinical Negligence team at McMillan Williams Solicitors Limited acted for the Claimant in relation to a clinical negligence claim against Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust. 


Andrew Bentham
Andrew Bentham
Partner - Injury

The claim related to the management received at St Thomas’ Hospital in 1999 and 2000 for a serious bone infection in the Claimant’s right tibia.  The Claimant has sadly been left with a serious, permanent chronic pain condition which requires extensive medication and which has had a profound effect on his life.

The claim has a long and somewhat unfortunate procedural history.   A liability trial had originally been listed for March 2017.  In November 2016 it came to light that the Defendant had failed to disclose around 600 pages of crucial medical records.  As a consequence the trial in March 2017 had to be vacated and a liability only trial was listed for March 2018.  The liability only trial took place on the 7th March 2018 before Her Honour Judge Taylor sitting as a Judge of the High Court.  Mr Ben Collins QC of Old Square Chambers was instructed to act for the Claimant.

Summary

The Claimant suffers from sickle cell anaemia. On the 10th August 1999 he was admitted to St Thomas’ Hospital with a painful swelling over the right shin. Acute osteomyelitis was suspected and the Claimant underwent surgery for incision and drainage on the 13th August 1999.  Following the operation, the wound remained open and the Claimant underwent a long period after this operation when the exposed bone, including exposed cortical bone, remained uncovered by soft tissue or skin.  An attempt was made to close the wound in theatre on 3rd September 1999, but this was unsuccessful and the bone remained exposed on the 15th September 1999 when he was discharged home from St Thomas Hospital.

Over the following months the Claimant continued to have an open wound with exposed cortical bone. In January 2000 the Claimant was reviewed by an Orthopaedic Surgeon who noted the long period of exposed bone and continuing discharge.   A CT scan confirmed a cavity and a possible sequestrum.  The Claimant was admitted on the 16th March 2000 and underwent a guttering procedure on the following day.  A large area of bone was removed.  The Claimant was discharged home.   The bone infection developed into chronic osteomyelitis which has left the Claimant with a serious and chronic pain condition.

Judgment

It was argued by the Claimant that the Defendant’s antibiotic management was inadequate and that steps should have been taken to provide coverage of the bone left exposed following the operation on 13th August 1999, in particular by undertaking a local muscle flap.  It was also alleged that the Defendant should have undertaken further surgical debridement/guttering so as to facilitate a local muscle flap procedure.  It was the Claimant’s case that proper coverage of the exposed bone, together with a proper antibiotic management strategy, would have led to cure of the osteomyelitis such that the Claimant would not have been left with chronic pain.

Her Honour Judge Taylor gave judgment for the Claimant. She noted that on the 16th August 1999 the Defendant was in breach of duty in failing to take the Claimant back to surgery for further debridement, followed by tissue cover provided by a gastrocnemius flap.   The Judge held that had the Claimant been treated by debridement, flap and antibiotics, the likelihood was that he would have been cured of osteomyelitis, or at least free from it for a long period. Flap surgery would have succeeded and the current type of crater with friable skin would have been avoided. He would have avoided the long subsequent history of infection and pain specifically attributable to it.

There are a number of interesting aspects to this case, two of which are considered here.

This was, self-evidently, a case relating to matters which took place a long time ago. There was an incomplete set of medical records (and those records which were available were of the standards of the time – described as “telegraphic”). Nevertheless the Defendant did not rely on live witness evidence from any of the treating physicians or nurses who were responsible for the Claimant’s care.   The Defendant confirmed that attempts had been made to locate some of those concerned, which had not been successful given the passage of time.  Civil Evidence Act notices were served in 2016, some time before the trial, confirming that they had left the employment of the Defendant and efforts to date to trace them had been unsuccessful. The Judge noted that little information had been provided as to steps taken before or since then.  As a result the history had to be taken primarily from those notes which were available, and the interpretation of some key documents were in dispute between the parties.  The issue arose as to what inferences, if any, should be drawn from the records.  The Judge concluded that it would have been of assistance to hear from those involved what their practice would have been in 1999-2000, even if they did not recall all the detail of this particular case.   She held, therefore, that where the notes fell short, and were ambiguous or there were gaps, although the burden remained on the Claimant, the Defendant should not have the benefit of these deficiencies, nor of the unexplained lack of explanatory witness evidence. The ruling may be of assistance in other cases in which notes are limited and live evidence is not available to explain them or fill in gaps.

The case also serves as a warning as to the need for experts to maintain their independence, in particular in the circumstances of changing facts. The Judge was critical of the Defendant’s expert Orthopaedic surgeon. She took account of his “eminence and undoubted competence” but she “reluctantly concluded that in some respects in this case, his evidence was either diverted away from independence and genuine belief by errors underpinning judgements he made, which he then felt the necessity to justify, or that as a result his evidence on these aspects is not soundly based in fact”

By way of example, she continued:

“In particular, the error about the size of the wound led to his initial view both that the wound was healing rapidly, justifying a wait and see policy, and the options for tissue coverage of the wound. Similarly, his error about the unavailability of free flap surgery in 1999 underpinned his view that the approach taken in relation to tissue coverage was justified at the time. Once these errors were identified, he changed his approach, but only so as to maintain his original position, continuing to ignore some of the available documentary evidence. In this respect the criticisms made by the Claimant of his evidence are justified”.

It may be difficult for an expert who has formed a firm view about a case subsequently to accept a change of approach as new facts emerge. This is an example which demonstrates the importance of experts doing so.

We Can Help

At MW, our mission is "To make quality legal services accessible to everyone", including those who have suffered at the hands of medical professionals.

If you would like to speak to our team of specialist Clinical Negligence or Personal Injury Solicitors to discuss your case, call us today on 0203 551 8500 or use our Contact Us form to tell us more about your case and arrange a callback.

NHS

 

On 10th October 2018 the Supreme Court unanimously upheld an appeal by the Claimant that a hospital, whose A&E reception staff told a patient he would have to wait up to five hours before receiving treatment for a head injury, was in breach of it’s duty of care.

The Case

The Claimant, Michael Mark Junior Darnley, who was then aged 26, was assaulted in the late afternoon of 17 May 2010. Later the same day he telephoned a friend and told him about the assault. He said that he felt unwell and had a headache which was getting worse. His friend advised him to seek medical attention and drove Mr Darnley to the Accident & Emergency department at Mayday Hospital (now known as Croydon University Hospital).

Mr Darnley gave an account of the incident to the A&E receptionist but the receptionist told him that he would need to take a seat and wait up to 4 or 5 hours before he could be seen.  The receptionist did not notify Mr Darnley that the hospital had a priority triage system and that patients with head injuries were fast tracked and would be triaged within 30 minutes.

As a result of this omission Mr Darney did not wait in A&E because he had started to feel very unwell; he asked his friend  after waiting 19 minutes to take him home where his condition worsened.  He was subsequently taken by ambulance back to Mayday hospital where he was diagnosed as having a serious head injury with bleeding on the brain. Mr Darnley was left with a permanent brain injury and severe paralysis to the left side of his body.

The Court in the first instance and at appeal ruled that the incorrect information being given by the receptionist did not amount to a breach  and the Court of Appeal held that:

  1. The Trust did not owe Mr Darnley a duty to advise him about waiting times,

  2. The damage he suffered was outside the scope of any duty that was owed to him, and

  3. There was no causal link between any breach and his injuries; he was told to wait, but chose to leave. 

Mr Darnley’s defeat sat very uncomfortably with many Clinical Negligence lawyers.

The Ruling

The Supreme Court overturned these decisions and Mr Darnley was successful in showing that the receptionist owed a duty of care and that the duty was breached.  Furthermore the chain of causation was not broken because it was foreseeable that Mr Darnley may have left A&E after being advised that he would have to wait in the region of 4 to 5 hours.

This decision came as welcome news to many, who had felt that Mr Darnley had been denied justice previously.   Of course he would rely on the information given to him at reception and it was easy to see that he would have stayed, considering he was feeling so unwell, if he knew that an assessment of his injury would take place within 30 minutes, merely 11 minutes after he left. 

The Supreme Court’s decision is undoubtedly the right decision; Mr Darnley should be compensated for his injuries and patients should be able to rely on information given to them by medical and non-medical staff.

We Can Help

At MW, our mission is "To make quality legal services accessible to everyone", including those who have suffered at the hands of medical professionals. 

We are also experienced Brain Injury Solicitors who will arrange a specialist Brain Injury Case Manager to help plan and implement a rehabilitation package which can incorporate your health, psychological, educational or occupational needs.   We will work with medical, clinical and other experts to value your past and most importantly, future needs, such as personal and medical care, income, accommodation and transport.

Where possible we will secure interim payments to assist with day to day and rehabilitation needs throughout the course of your claim.

If you would like to speak to our team of specialist Clinical Negligence or Personal Injury Solicitors to discuss your case, call us today on 0203 551 8500 or use our Contact Us form to tell us more about your case and arrange a callback.

 

Brain and Vestibular Injury

 

In recent months there have been three judgments where the Claimant has sought to prove a subtle (mild) brain injury, claiming a number of ongoing symptoms and impairments, including vestibular (balance and dizziness) injuries.

Pinkus v Direct Line

The Claimant was involved in a road traffic accident on the M4 when another vehicle moved into the fast lane and collided with the Claimant. The injuries claimed included a mild traumatic brain injury and psychological symptoms. The Claimant claimed that his injuries caused him to lose his job a few weeks after the accident and that he has not worked since apart from some unsuccessful attempts at short term contracts. His claim totalled in the region of £850,000. However, the Judge found that the Claimant had consciously exaggerated and had given inconsistent accounts of his symptoms. The Judge held that the Claimant had been fundamentally dishonest and dismissed the claim in it’s entirety.

Hibberd-Little v Carlton

This claimant was involved in a rear end collision and claimed that she suffered a mild brain injury, a diffuse axonal injury, resulting in a cluster of cognitive and physical problems, psychological issues, concussion of the auditory and vestibular symptoms resulting in vestibular migraine and hyperacusis. She also suffered a soft tissue injury to her neck and upper thoracic spine. Her claim totalled £4.4 million. However, the Judge preferred most of the Defendant’s medical expert evidence and was not satisfied that the accident had caused an organic brain injury with cognitive, behavioural and audio-vestibular symptoms. In addition the Judge did not accept much of the Claimant’s witness evidence as there were inconsistences with her medical records and an absence of a clear timeline. The Claimant was awarded just £41,250.

Joseph v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis

The Claimant was again involved in a rear end collision. She complained of a number of ongoing symptoms including dizziness, imbalance, headaches, difficulty thinking, poor memory and poor concentration. A key factor in the judge deciding that there was no traumatic brain injury was the preference of the defendant’s neurology expert who was of the opinion that there was no post traumatic amnesia. She was awarded £388,181 but of the future losses claimed totalling £1,183,051, she was awarded just £151,800.

We Can Help

The poor outcomes of these cases for the Claimants demonstrate that each case is individual and requires the knowledge and expertise of a specialist Personal Injury solicitor when preparing and building a brain and vestibular injury case. 

At MW Solicitors we have many years of experience of undertaking brain and vestibular injury cases, achieving successful outcomes.  We are experts in:

  • Preparation of accurate and consistent witness statements.
  • Selecting appropriate medical experts.
  • The careful consideration of what each medical expert is saying.
  • Claiming sums appropriate to the injuries which can be proved.

If you have suffered a brain or vestibular injury and have not yet instructed a solicitor, or if you have an ongoing claim and are unhappy with the way the case is progressing, our expert Personal Injury Solicitors are waiting to talk to you.

Don't delay, call us today on 0203 551 8500 or use our Contact Us form to arrange a callback.

In an episode of Coronation Street this week Kevin Webster had to make a heart breaking decision to allow doctors to amputate his 7 year old son’s foot to save him from dying from sepsis. He had developed the potentially fatal condition after grazing his knee while playing football. In real life thousands of parents every year are faced with the same terrible decision.


Denise McKeown
Denise McKeown
Partner - Health & Injury

According to the UK Sepsis Trust someone in the world dies of sepsis every 3.5 seconds. In the UK alone, 44,000 people lose their lives to sepsis every year. This is more than breast, bowel and prostate cancer combined. Globally, sepsis claims 6 million lives a year. Yet with early diagnosis it is easily treatable.

Sepsis (also known as blood poisoning) occurs when the body’s immune system overreacts to an infection or injury. Normally the immune system fights infection – but sometimes, for reasons which are not  understood, it attacks the body’s own organs and tissues. If it is not treated immediately, sepsis can result in organ failure and death. Yet with early diagnosis, it can be treated with antibiotics.

The initial symptoms of Sepsis are flu-like symptoms, gastroenteritis or a chest infection. There is no one sign, and symptoms present differently between adults and children.

Sepsis and Clinical Negligence Claims

Jack’s half sister, Sophie Webster, was caring for Jack when he became ill. She sought help from a medical centre and a hospital but his symptoms were dismissed as a virus and she was told to give him liquid paracetamol. There was therefore a delay in making a correct diagnosis and commencing treatment. As a result Jack became severely ill and required an amputation of his foot to save his life. Sophie is now considering legal action against the medical centre and the hospital on the grounds that the delay caused the amputation.

McMillan Williams are specialist Clinical Negligence Solicitors. Our team of lawyers have dealt with several cases concerning a delay or failure to diagnose sepsis obtaining the maximum possible compensation for victims and their families to assist in rebuilding their lives.

We Can Help

At MW Solicitors our mission is “To make quality legal services accessible to everyone” including those who find themselves in a similar situation to the fictional Webster family.  We can help by acting quickly to secure funding by way of interim payment for rehabilitation, treatment and care packages whilst investigating the claim fully.

Our team of experienced and specialist Clinical Negligence Solicitors are here to help. Call us today on 020 3551 8500 or use our Contact Us form to arrange a callback.

Contact Us

Translate this page

enfrdeitptrues