Breast Surgeon Under Investigation for Unnecessary Breast Cancer Surgeries

During the period 2004-2007 hundreds of women had undergone botched and unnecessary breast surgeries. The surgeon Ian Paterson is now under investigation by the police and could face criminal charges. He has been suspended by the General Medical Council and the main reason for that  is that he misdiagnosed at least 450 women with cancer and applied unnecessary surgery manipulations to remove lumps.

Paterson is a breast cancer specialist, who had worked for the NHS for almost 20 years – since 1994. The surgeries in question took place in different UK hospitals during the period  2004 – 2007. Now about 90 of his patients are submitting compensation claims against the Heart of England NHS Trust and Spire Healthcare, because of the unnecessary procedures they have gone through.

Besides being accused of removing lumps without being necessary, he is also investigated for performing a mastectomy procedure which is not sanctioned in the UK, called “cleavage sparing”. Excess breast tissue was left behind for cosmetic reasons, which is against national guidelines.

The solicitor on the claimant side stated his client had to undergo a second surgery in order to remove the excess tissue.

The national head of clinical negligence for Thompson Solicitors –Ms Kashmir Uppal said the case was the largest one she had ever dealt with. She also added: ”[These women] deserved the best medical care but have been let down by Mr Paterson.

“What we’re trying to do is secure some compensation for them to move forward with their lives.”

Spire Healthcare is working closely with the NHS Trust and the GMC on the investigation related to Mr Paterson practice.

A spokesman for the group said: “Supported by a team of independent consultant breast surgeons, we are reviewing the medical records of Ian Paterson’s patients who underwent specific procedures for benign (non-cancerous) breast conditions.”

You cannot protect your employees from the doctors, however you can find very useful Health and Safety Documents on our legal documents website.

Voting Rights For The UK Prisoners

Should prisoners be given the right to vote is the new question to be answered by the UK government. Back in 2005 the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled that banning the prisoners from their voting rights was illegal, that`s why now the UK government is negotiating a solution suitable for both sides.

There are three options for the coalition – to comply with the ruling, to delay the decision or face a sustainable fine. It is thought that the government is now working on a draft bill, which will give voting rights to a limited number of prisoners. In addition, the decision is expected to be delayed until the end of November (which is the official deadline), as the police commissioner elections are due on 17th November.

At 2005, when this ruling has been announced by the ECHR, David Cameron said that it would make him “sick” to give prisoners any voting right. He also mentioned that in his opinion, this issue should be “a matter for Parliament”, but not  a foreign court”.

According to unnamed sources for Downing Street, the Prime Minister still believed that ” when people go to prison, they lose their right to vote”.

According to Tory backbencher Dominic Raab there is a minimal chance of fines, in case the UK does not comply with the ruling and no chance for the UK to be ejected from the EU Council

On the contrary according to Attorney General Dominic Grieve the UK must comply with the ECHR ruling or ” risk making itself a pariah state ”

However a government source told the BBC “It is completely untrue. It’s not happening. It’s complete nonsense.”

Which version is the correct one, will soon become clear, currently in the UK, only prisoners on remand are given voting rights.

At this stage we cannot discuss the prisoner rights to vote, however we believe that everyone must have the right to access our free legal documents.


Weaknesses Found in The Contract Between Atos and the Government

Auditors from National Audit Office (NAO) have found “weaknesses” in the contract between Atos, the private firm paid to carry out fit-to-work medical assessments and the government.

NAO found weaknesses in the agreement, which include bad performance and not providing good value for money. The National Audit Office criticised Iain Duncan Smith’s Department of Work and Pensions (DwP) for setting performance targets too low, failing to adequately fine Atos for poor performance and not properly checking the accuracy of performance data that Atos submitted.

Despite the criticisms, the Paralympics Sponsor – Atos was recently awarded a £400m contract to conduct the medical re-assessments of  Employment and Support Allowance benefit claimants to establish whether or not they are fit for work.

This was initiated in 2008 under the Labour government scheme. It has been accepted with significant controversy and resistance, with recent figures showing wrong decisions in about 40% of the time. The NAO said it was unclear whether the quality of the tests was to blame for the number of wrong decisions and that there was insufficient data to make a statement on this.

DWP admitted that Atos was breaching the deadlines with failing to complete some fitness testing and since nid-2011 their performance was not satisfying – “below the standard”. DWP has been criticised by NAO for not taking efficient measures on time by seeking “financial  redress” from Atos for their bad-performed services. After the audit, NAO concluded that only 10% of the poor-performance penalties had been applied.

The NAO criticised the DWP for not seeking “financial redress” for these delays, saying just 10% of the penalties triggered by poor performance had been applied.

But a DWP Secretary Iain Duncan Smith claimed that the agreement was reviewed regularly  and had been “substantially improved” over the past two years. He also said: “It is a complicated area, but we are committed to making it a success to ensure it is both fair and accurate for the user and value for money for the taxpayer.”