Hepatitis C victory in High Court
05/04/2001
Thank you very much for all you did for us. Our lives are so much better through your help.
Barry, DoncasterIntroduction
Alexander Harris along with a number of specialist law firms are representing clients in this action which has been co-ordinated by Deas Mallen solicitors of Newcastle-upon-Tyne. The action has been brought under the Consumer Protection Act which places strict liability on product manufacturers who, once aware as to the possibly dangerous nature of a product are held liable if they continue to supply dangerous products.
Information Gathered from Various News Reports
Patients infected with the Hepatitis C virus through contaminated blood products have won thousands in damages at the High Court. Individuals in six test cases will receive between £10,000 and more than £210,000. The final compensation bill could be as much as £7m.
Mr Justice Burton ruled that, in all, 114 claimants were entitled to compensation.
They were infected with Hepatitis C virus (HCV), which affects the liver, after receiving blood transfusions or blood products.
Those affected include young children infected while being treated for leukaemia and mothers who received blood transfusions or blood products immediately after childbirth.
Others were infected during blood transfusions or through blood products received during surgery, or while being treated for a blood disorder.
The Judge will consider whether to grant the defendants leave to appeal on April 10.
If he does grant permission, payouts will be delayed until the outcome of the appeal was known.
The 'Lead' Cases
The six "lead" cases highlighted the judge were:
- A woman in her mid-50s infected by a blood transfusion during routine surgery. Medication failed and she developed active liver disease (cirrhosis). She has since undergone a liver transplant. Her total payout, including compensation for financial losses while she has been ill, was more than £210,000.
- A man in his early 70s was infected through a blood transfusion given after heart surgery. A course of medication failed and he now has cirrhosis. He was awarded a total of more than £53,000
- A woman, now in her late teens was infected when she was nine through a unit of plasma given to her as part of treatment for a serious liver condition. Her first course of treatment failed, but she has yet to suffer active liver disease. She was awarded a total of £37,000.
- A mother in her mid-thirties who was infected via a blood transfusion given after childbirth. She has suffered lethargy and a serious psychiatric reaction, but she has refused treatment because she was worried it would make her too tired to look after her children. She was awarded a total of £26,000.
- A man infected when he was nine through a blood transfusions after an road accident. His infection cleared spontaneously, but he had a severe psychiatric reaction to his diagnosis. He was awarded a total of more than £10,000, with the assurance of more if he becomes ill again.
- A 23-year-old also infected in a blood transfusion after an accident. One course of medication was successful, but he relapsed. A second course was successful. He too was awarded £10,000, with the possibility of further payouts if necessary.
Lord Morris of Manchester, national president of the Haemophilia Society, said: "This is a landmark judgement of huge importance to thousands of other people, in addition to those specifically in this case, who have been infected with Hepatitis C by NHS blood products."
Lawyers for the claimants hailed the judgement as a "landmark decision".
It is the first multi-party action to go to court under the Consumer Protection Act 1987. Producers are not liable for risks which are genuinely unknown to exist, but as soon as the possibly dangerous nature of the product has been discovered by someone somewhere, they will be liable if they continue to supply dangerous products.
The claims were brought against the National Blood Authority, in England and the Velindre NHS Trust in Wales who contested the action.
The organisations who will be affected by the ruling are the NHS bodies today answerable for the production and supply of blood and blood products by the National Blood Transfusion Service since March 1, 1988.
During the case, Michael Brooke QC, for the defendants, said: "All of these claimants have suffered in one way or another the stigma of being Hepatitis C sufferers. The public is often confused about HCV and wrongly believes that it is similar to HIV infection."
The case is important because it sets an important precedent by establishing a legal link between medical liability and consumer rights. A second case, involving nine claimants including haemophiliacs and a woman infected during a heart transplant, will have a preliminary hearing in May.
Back to news