Subscribe To This Site

No Fault Compensation Claims

No fault compensation is seen as an ability to claim redress without having to go through a lengthy and expensive legal process.

The concept is gaining ground in the world of medicine, where someone seeking a claim for medical negligence may spend up to a decade pursuing their case and where the courts have traditionally been seen to be biased towards the medical profession.

A successful no fault compensation scheme eliminates the need to prove medical negligence and legal responsibility.

no blame compensation

The claimant would just have to prove that his injuries or condition were the cause of his treatment by the doctor, surgeon or specialist without having to having to find responsibility or point the finger of blame.

Known as ‘non negligent harm’ this kind of compensation claim can be covered by insurance which covers unforeseen events where blame can be attributed.

The concept of no fault compensation as an alternative to expensive and time consuming litigation is also supported by the country main doctors' organisation the British Medical Association – the BMA.

The BMA's support comes as the National Health service faces ever increasing legal costs.

The British government set up a no fault compensation scheme in 2001 for the sufferers of Variant CJD in 2001.

A sum of £55 million pounds was allocated to the first 250 cases, with an extra £50,000 given to each sufferer as compensation for the trauma suffered by them and their families.

no fault compensation

No blame compensation claims have also been made by those suffering from industrial illnesses such as asbestosis, pneumoconiosis and diffuse mesothelioma.

These claims can be complicated and it is advisable to contact a personal injuries lawyer before making a claim.

While these kind of compensation claims can be seen as reducing the costs of litigation as well as bureaucracy, they do have their critics.

Critics claim that this kind of claim is contrary to natural justice as it evades the right to seeking redress through the civil courts as well as removing the concept of accountability.

They argue that only be pursing a case through the courts will full details of what happened to the claimant will be revealed.