Informed consent is the cornerstone of good medical practice, where doctors and patients collaborate together to decide on treatment options that are most suited to both the healthcare needs, and wishes and preferences of individual patients.

Or, as it was put in the well known legal case of Montgomery: “An adult person of sound mind is entitled to decide which, if any, of the available forms of treatment to undergo… The Doctor is therefore under a duty to take reasonable care to ensure that the patient is aware of any material risks involved in any recommended treatment, and of any reasonable alternative or variant treatments. The test of materiality is whether, in the circumstances of the particular case, a reasonable person in the patient’s position would be likely to attach significance to the risk or the doctor is or should reasonably be aware that the particular patient would be likely to attach significance to it.”

It has recently been published that nearly thousands of patients with mental health problems are left waiting months for treatment on ‘hidden’ NHS waiting lists.

The NHS provides a talking therapy service known as Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT). The objective of the programme is to provide evidence-based psychological therapies to those who suffer from conditions such as anxiety, depression, obsessive –compulsive disorder and PTSD.

A report by NHS Digital published on 14 November 2019, revealed that 75% of patients who enter the IAPT programme are seen within 6 weeks, which on the face of it seems relatively quick. However, the reality is that patients are left waiting months to enter into regular treatment sessions after their first initial appointment.

Last month judgment was handed down in the case of Paul v The Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust [2019] EWHC 2893 (QB), the findings of which, reminds legal practioners of the difficulty in bringing psychiatric injury claims on behalf of secondary victim Claimants. This was an unusual case in many ways but it is notable that Master Cook made an Order to strike out the Claimant’s case following the Defendant’s strike out application pursuant to CPR Rules 3 and 24 –on the basis that the claim disclosed no reasonable grounds for bringing the claims and / or that the claim had no reasonable prospect of success.

The simple answer is that there is no such thing as an average award for any type of clinical negligence claim nor for any type of nerve injury case, in particular.

The courts do not use a tariff system and the way that compensation is calculated depends on individual factors for each individual injured person. There is no “one size fit all“ type award. Each damages award is bespoke for calculated solely for that individual case.

The compensation you may be entitled to will depend on the type of injury you have suffered and how serious it is.

Accessing satisfactory healthcare is a challenge for those in prison. The legal position is that prisoners are entitled to receive the same standard of healthcare as the general population but in practice, this is rarely the case.