|
| |
CASE HISTORIES
...(see also Testimonials)
| Case
History
PW
PW
was born in July 1930 and suffered from Vascular dementia, double
incontinence, virtual immobility and suspected cancer.
In
February 2011 PW was assessed by the NHS for continuing NHS care
eligibility and refused. Although the PCT assessors considered PW's care
needs as severe in one area and high in two others and, indeed, the
assessors recommended eligibility, once the matter came before the
continuing health care panel it was refused.
Specialist
healthcare solicitors Robert Campbell & Company were retained by the
patient's family and took up the case with the Primary Care Trust. After a
long battle lasting some 14 months the PCT finally agreed PW was eligible
for continuing NHS care funding and, indeed, had been for over a year and,
therefore, offered reimbursement of the care fees lost during the ensuing
period which amounted to approximately £39,000.00.
PW's
son, AW, who had driven the matter throughout commented:
"We
are obviously delighted that we have managed to secure dad's entitlement
to Continuing Care funding but it is sad that we have had to engage the
services of specialist lawyers in order to secure this and that the
process has taken so long. Without Robert Campbell & Company I do
not believe we would have achieved this result and there was so much at
stake here engaging professionals who are true specialists in their
field was an absolute must."
|
|
Case
History
Mrs
BPJ (Deceased)
Mrs
BPJ was diagnosed with Parkinsons in 1988 and this became unmanageable in
2002 when she developed Dementia and began having falls, hallucinations,
double incontinence and swallowing problems. She began to lose weight and
her memory.
The
family made an application to the NHS for continuing care funding on the
basis that Mrs BPJ’s primary need was a health need but this was turned
down. Mrs BPJ remained in care at her own cost from May 2005 until she
passed away in July 2010. The losses that she suffered were staggering
£132,000.00 over this period. All of this had to paid for from her own
funds apart from approximately £100.00 per week.
Having
been refused funding by the NHS on a number of occasions the family
instructed specialist healthcare solicitors Robert Campbell & Company
to pursue the matter on behalf of Mrs BPJ. After something of a battle
eligibility for current funding was finally established in early 2010 but
this still left the retrospective claim.
Robert
Campbell & Company pursued the retrospective claim for the period May
2005 to July 2010 to recover approximately £150,000.00 on behalf of the
estate to include interest and costs. Whilst the final amount to be
recovered is not quite settled the claim has succeeded in it’s entirety
for all periods in issue.
Mrs
BPJ’s daughter, Genine said:
"I
have pursued this with the help of Robert Campbell & Company for a
considerable period of time in order to ensure that my late mum’s
rights were respected and we finally won through. I am so grateful to
Robert Campbell and his team for all the hard work, skill and expertise
they have applied to the matter which I do not believe we would have
experienced with a firm of general solicitors or claims persons. I would
strongly encourage anyone who believes they were wrongly charged for
their relatives care to seek help and not to give up"
Back
to the top |
| Case
History
Mr
PJU 
Mr PJU was born in March 1932 and in 2011 unfortunately he developed Bowel
Cancer and had to be admitted to Hospital where he underwent operations
for removal of intestine and fitting of a colostomy bag. He also suffered
vascular dementia causing strokes which left him with aphasia and he
became unable to walk, was incontinent and had brain disease and
deterioration of coordination skills.
Mr
PJU was assessed by Social Services and despite all of the foregoing they
assessed that his condition was not severe enough to require continuing
care funding although he was unable to go home.
Mr
PJU had been assessed in March 2011 by the NHS for continuing care funding
but the assessor who completed the continuing care checklist did not
consider his condition was even serious enough to warrant a full
assessment under the National Framework.
In
the circumstances following admission to a nursing home the family decided
to instruct specialist healthcare solicitors Robert Campbell &
Company to challenge the NHS. Unfortunately during the process of
challenge Mr Usher passed away.
However
in January 2012 Robert Campbell & Company finally obtained
confirmation from the NHS that Mr PJU should have been eligible for fully
funded NHS continuing healthcare from the date of his admission to the
nursing home until the date of his death and the recovery of fees lost
since the admission is now under way, the CHC team having requested copies
of invoices etc.
Robert
Campbell, Principal of Robert Campbell & Company, commented:
"This was really quite an extraordinary case. It was perfectly
clear to us and one of the medical experts with whom we worked from the
outset that Mr PJU should be eligible for CHC funding. There are two parts
to the initial process so far as the NHS is concerned when a person makes
an application for continuing care funding. The first is the completion of
a CHC checklist which is essentially a shorthand means of screening out
those the NHS assessors think definitely will not qualify. The second is
the conduct of a full multidisciplinary assessment in respect of those who
pass the checklist. In this case quite unbelievably the assessor concluded
that Mr PJU did not even trigger the second part of that process which is
extraordinary. I am very pleased for the family that we have been able to
right this wrong and look forward to obtaining reimbursement of their
losses with interest."
Mr
PJU's daughter Mrs JH commented as follows:
"Despite his difficulties communicating, my dad made it clear
that he was distressed about using his life savings to pay for continuing
care that he definitely should have been entitled to. I told him I would
challenge the decision. I approached Robert Campbell following a
recommendation from a friend and he told me that my dad had a very strong
case. Having won the appeal sadly after my dad's death, I felt that
justice had been done and my dad could rest in peace. Thank you to Robert
for allowing me to do this for my dad."
Back
to the top |
| Case
History
Mrs
A V – Application for NHS Continuing Care Funding
Our
instructions in this case came from her concerned son Gordon who undertook
our free online
assessment. We scored the case "Definite1" and Gordon asked
us to pursue his mother’s claim under our "capped fee" scheme.
Mrs
A V had suffered several minor strokes, was completely immobile, unable to
sit up and bedridden.
In
February 2011 the NHS had refused Mrs A V’s application.
We
began gathering records in order to move the claim and wrote to the NHS
confirming it was intended to appeal the decision.
In
June 2011 we received a letter from the NHS body concerned confirming it
had reversed its decision and granted CHC funding with effect from 8th
February 2011, promising to refund care fees since that date.
We
are now pursuing a claim for restitution of fees in respect of the earlier
period.
June
2011
Back
to the top |
| Case
History
re:-Mrs
B W – Continuing NHS Care funding
Mrs
B W suffered cerebral vascular dementia and was prescribed anti-psychotic
medication. The family scored her mental state and continence as severe
with mobility and feeding as moderate.
Mrs
B W was admitted to a care home but her condition worsened and the family
pursued applications for continuing NHS Care Funding and appealed on 3
occasions. On the third occasion the family decided to instruct specialist
Healthcare Lawyers Robert Campbell and Company to act for them and in
September 2010 the appeal was finally granted with eligibility running
from November 2009.
As
Mrs BW was admitted to the care home in July 2007 the family are now
considering pursuing an application for restitution of care fees incurred
during the ensuing period and they have expert evidence to support the
proposition that eligibility should have been granted upon admission to
the care home.
Family
members are obviously delighted at the result and said ". . . we are
very grateful to Robert Campbell and Company for their hard work in this
matter, for without their expertise we do not believe we would have
succeeded. We would willingly recommend Robert Campbell and Company to any
others fighting this very complex situation."
Back
to the top |
| Case
History
Continuing
NHS Care Application - Mrs VME
VME
had been diagnosed with dementia, immobility and required help with
washing, dressing, bathing, hair care, toileting (she was doubly
incontinent) and required turning every two hours in the night. She can
only drink with thickening additive and could not communicate and would
sometimes become violent and had arthritis.
Her
medication included Fluoxetine. It was believed that she was in the last
stages of vascular dementia.
Nonetheless,
in 2008 the NHS refused her continuing care funding and the matter went to
appeal.
Robert
Campbell & Company, who specialise in healthcare law and, particularly
continuing healthcare cases, were instructed by the family. They took up
the fight having taken over from a local firm of solicitors in 2008.
After
a long and arduous battle we were pleased that Mrs VME was found to be
eligible for certain periods of the time since she was discharged from
hospital in 2004 but, thankfully, she was granted eligibility from August
2008 onwards but it should be noted legal and medical opinion expenses
could not be reclaimed although the Nursing Home fees were returned.
We
are most grateful to Robert Campbell & Company for their specialist
input in this matter without which we do not believe we would have
succeeded in this quest.
D A
Martin
Back
to the top
|
| CASE
HISTORY
MR
T D H
Mr
TDH was born on 2 October 1929 in Thorne and, after National Service, went
to University and studied Physical Education and English. He taught for
approximately 40 years and was married to his wife at the age of 24. His
medical history included operations for a hernia in the 1960s, cataract
operations in around 2001 and he became epileptic from 1992.
TDH
first began to demonstrate memory problems around 2005 and was referred to
the local Mental Health Service for Older People in 2006.
TDH
was diagnosed with Alzheimers disease and commenced taking Arocet, an
anti-dementia drug.
DH
improved in the short term but then became unsteady of gait and then
suffered a considerable deterioration in his condition and was admitted to
hospital in January 2007 under Section 2 of the Mental Health Act.
TDH
was discharged in July 2007 to a nursing home where he remains.
It
was clear to the family on discharge that TDH's primary need for care was
a health need but the Health Authority disagreed. The family instructed
Robert Campbell and Company to pursue the application on behalf of TDH for
fully funded NHS care and, after a battle lasting some two years, the PCT
acceded not only to Continuing Care funding for the future but also for
the full period during which TDH had been in care.
Upon
hearing the news TDH's son, Nick commented: "Many many thanks for
this. We are over the moon. I am only sorry my mother didn't live to see
this day. Thank you once again".
A
claim for the restitution of care fees plus interest and other losses is
now being pursued with the PCT in order to recover approximately £22,000.
Update
Full
restitution has now been obtained in respect of all care fees lost, plus
interest.
Back
to the top |
Case
History
Re: JL - Continuing Care Claim
In this case, the family produced an extremely helpful and detailed
synopsis from the outset enabling us to obtain a preliminary expert
opinion from our consultant geriatrician and form a very strong view on
the merits. The family's contributions were as follows:
"Before being admitted to hospital in 2007, my father and his wife
Joyce, had been independent. Living in their own home doing shopping etc.
During the first quarter of 2007 Jack was in N Manchester Gen Hosp twice:
he attended out-patients' clinic, was admitted, then never lived
independently. He was admitted with cellulitis, varicose ulcers and
circulation problems. He had always been a quiet man, but, like many
others in this particular ward, underwent a peculiar character change: he
became violent and abusive: my brother and I are convinced that he was
given something that caused this.
Once in hospital he declined heath wise. For a second time my brother and
I could not make sense of the situation: Jack had been catheterised,
clearly had become incontinent, and was dependent on drips/tubes etc. We
had a talk with a doctor who suggested that Jack did not have long to live
due to heart and circulation problems. My brother and I next received
another bombshell, when one of Jack's doctors told us that he now had
severe, advanced dementia and that the only answer was for him to be
discharged into a nursing home. The family was then repeatedly harassed by
Social Services inquiring as to whether they had found a suitable home. In
between full-time jobs my brother & I found a place at Flixton Manor
Nursing Home. All of a sudden my brother received a phone call informing
him that Dad was 'on the road' to the N Home. On arrival the staff were of
the opinion that he did not have long to live. Manchester SS had deemed
him self-funding as he owned a property, and! would defer payment until
their house was sold. (We later settled their fees.)
After some time at Flixton Manor Dad improved and the staff's opinion was
that he may well have suffered a stroke in hospital, which was missed. He
continued to improve, but confusion, mobility problems and incontinence
still remained. My wife and I took the decision in May 2008 to move him to
live with us alongside his wife. We believe that the £27,000 bill imposed
upon us by this course of events was either wholly or partly wrong."
The main instructing family member, RL, commented:
"We felt that father's main need for care was a health need and,
therefore, that the NHS should pay for his care. The NHS initially refused
and we instructed Robert Campbell & Company who specialise in
continuing health care cases to pursue the matter on his behalf and we
were delighted to hear in April 2010 that continuing care funding had been
agreed retrospectively.
We are delighted with this result and would recommend Robert Campbell and
Company to any other families in this complex situation."
Robert Campbell added: "This is obviously an extremely satisfying
victory for the family and, indeed, for us and we were very pleased to
have been of service to some very good clients."
Back
to the top |
Case
History
Re: Mrs DH - Continuing Care Claim
My mum, DH, was born in January 1925. She suffered a stroke in July 2007
and was diagnosed with vascular dementia. I took care of her for six
months but found myself unable to care for her. She then moved into a care
home. Mum's dementia became worse and the care home had her admitted to
hospital. The council began doing an assessment saying that they would
work out what she needed to live on and everything above that they would
pay towards the care costs. Additionally, the family were going to have to
pay £50 per week top up to the care home.
Mum's dementia became progressively worse since December 2008 to the point
where she was admitted to a hospital after striking a carer at the care
home due to extreme paranoia, believing that everyone was trying to poison
her.
I did not think it was fair for mum to pay care fees and I therefore
instructed specialist solicitors, Robert Campbell & Co, with a view to
making an application for NHS continuing care funding for mum on the basis
that her main need for care was a health need.
Robert Campbell took up the case for us and contacted the local Primary
Care Trust. After gathering copies of all relevant records, he produced
evidence for us and took the matter to the Appeals Panel at the local
Primary Care Trust where Robert arranged for us to be professionally
represented. After approximately nine months, the matter was heard by the
Continuing Care Panel and I have to say we were dealt with very fairly and
the panel members took on board our evidence and what we had to say. I
believe this was the case because we were professionally represented and
accompanied by an expert witness of very high calibre.
We recently received a notification of the outcome of the panel and,
although the decision appears to have been close run, I am delighted to
say that the PCT have awarded continuing NHS care funding for mum which I
believe is the just and proper result.
We would like to thank Robert Campbell and his staff for all their support
and would not hesitate to recommend them to anyone in a similar situation.
Susan
R
Back
to the top |
Case
History
Re: Claim for Restitution of Nursing Home Fees for Mrs IPH
My
mother suffered from almost total paralysis following a PND condition
brought on by a skin cancer. She could only partially move her right arm,
had poor trunk control, was doubly incontinent, suffered from double
vision and could only intermittently ring the call bell and could not feed
herself. Although apparently mentally alert, she could not cope with
decisions affecting her care. She also suffered from clinical depression.
Despite
all of this, the continuing care panel of our local PCT rejected my
mother's claim for continuing care funding whilst she was alive.
We
consulted Robert Campbell & Company who specialise in continuing NHS
care claims and they took the matter up under their capped fee scheme.
Within a very short period of time I received a telephone call from the
head of the PCT Continuing Care Department to inform me that my mother has
now been assessed as eligible for continuing care funding, but only with
effect from May 2009. I am considering whether to appeal against
this.
I
firmly believe that this change in circumstances, whilst partially due to
deteriorating health, is most certainly due to involvement of Robert
Campbell & Company in this case and my own perseverance. Therefore I
would like to express my thanks for the work they have done.
RH
Back
to the top |
| Case
History
Re:
Mrs "ET"
In this case, the family produced an extremely helpful and detailed
synopsis from the outset enabling us to obtain a preliminary expert
opinion from our consultant geriatrician and form a very strong view on
the merits. The family's contributions were as follows:
Mum, who was still managing to live independently including doing her own
shopping despite being 93 and suffering from AMD, was admitted to Ward 4
of The Local Hospital on 11 October 2007 following a left sided
"stroke". This was initially diagnosed as a TIA but subsequently
revised to Infarction ( after CT scan ). She regained movement in her left
side quite quickly and was walking the length of the ward and back, with a
frame and 1 helper ( Physio probably ). She was doubly incontinent and
suffered cognitive impairment and loss of short term memory.
On 24 October 2007 she was transferred to Ward 15 ( Rehab ) where her
treatment left a lot to be desired. She was left in bed for the vast
majority of the time and developed a "Friction blister" on her
left heel which had a "protective dressing". After she had been
discharged to her Nursing Home we soon discovered that this was a pressure
sore with necrotic tissue around the size of a golf ball. There was no
dressing on her heel when she left Ward 4. She also developed a very sore
and red bottom in Ward 15 as a result of being left in her own faecal
incontinence waste for long periods ( even when family asked staff to
attend to her ). This was described as "overflow incontinence",
she also had significant rectal bleeding associated with constipation. The
combination of the heel wound and the sore bottom were cited by staff as
the reason they were unable to continue the walking she had started in
Ward 4.
During her stay in Ward 15 we were recommended by hospital staff to
activate the Enduring Power of Attorney due to her impaired cognitive
state, which we did.
On 3 December 2007 she was discharged to her Nursing Home. The PCT
conducted a CHC assessment shortly after her arrival at her Nursing Home
which concluded that Mum did not qualify for CHC. However, when we
reviewed her assessment with the PCT it became apparent that they were
unaware of the pressure sore and they agreed to do a re-assessment which
resulted in Mum getting CHC.
Mum had 2 emergency admissions to Hospital in December 2007 for major
rectal bleeds both of which resulted in her needing to have 3 units of
blood transfused. The cause was diagnosed, on her second admission, as
Diverticular disease.
The PCT assessor was subsequently involved in a car accident which
resulted in the next re-assessment of Mum's condition being delayed until
23 April 2008. In their judgement the improvement of Mum's heel ( which
was no longer necrotic and still slowly recovering ) meant she no longer
met CHC criteria. After being notified of their decision the family lodged
an appeal.
Since leaving Ward 4 Mum has hardly ( if ever ) been on her feet again.
Had she benefitted from continuation of the treatment and care started on
Ward 4 we feel that she would have been able to return to her bungalow
with an appropriate care package. Instead we have little doubt that she
will never be able to walk again after 9 months ( and counting ) of muscle
wastage. We cannot now see her being ever able to return to her
bungalow.
We took the matter on in August 2008 and spent several months gathering
and evaluating records in order to prove that Mrs ET's primary need for
care was a health need. Finally, in March 2009, the matter was heard by a
review panel of the PCT whose remit was to review the process used in its
decision making and the decision itself regarding eligibility made by the
Trust and, having seen our evidence and heard oral submissions, the Trust
found that Mrs ET was in fact eligible for fully funded NHS health care.
This was a long, hard battle but we were supported throughout by highly
motivated and determined family members who believed that we would
ultimately prevail. Mrs ET was admitted to a care home where she had to
pay fees of £620 per week. She had assets at stake of over £300,000 and
the victory has therefore been a very significant one for her and her
family. We are delighted to have been of assistance.
Back
to the top |
|
NHS
CONTINUING CARE FUNDING
Case History
Re:
Mrs H (Deceased)
Mrs
H lived in West London. Aged 81, she was under the care of Central and
North West London Mental Health Services although she was deemed able to
be discharged from hospital to live in her flat.
Her
son and attorney, Mark, lives in Paris but was determined to ensure his
mum enjoyed the highest possible quality of life during her remaining
years, which he strongly believed meant that she should be provided with a
full domiciliary care package at home. Mark was adamant that his mother
was not a suitable candidate for nursing home care as the one to one care
she required was too intensive.
Accordingly,
domiciliary care was arranged, and this was understandably expensive,
running at upwards of £8,000 per month.
Westminster
PCT assessed Mrs H on a number of occasions and came to the conclusion
that her primary need for care was not a health need and, therefore, the
Trust was not responsible for funding.
National
Specialist Solicitors, Robert Campbell & Company argued the position
on behalf of the applicant. In order to do this, all relevant records were
obtained and an independent expert medical assessment which pointed out
various inconsistencies in the Trust’s assessment and wholly supported
the claim.
After
argument, the Trust eventually agreed to grant eligibility but did so with
effect from a date over a year after the family believed that Mrs H’s
primary need for care arose upon her discharge from hospital to her flat.
Robert Campbell & Co therefore continued to argue the matter on the
basis that there should be full restitution of fees from the date of
discharge on the basis that Mrs H’s primary care need arose then. The
claim included not only the care fees expended but also interest and the
legal costs involved.
In
December 2008, Robert Campbell & Co successfully recovered just under
£90,000 for the late Mrs H’s estate, Mrs H having sadly passed away
some months earlier.
Son
Mark said the family were delighted at the resounding victory achieved and
particularly since this included the recovery of interest and the
solicitor’s costs involved. When told solicitors costs are not usually
recovered in these cases Mark said:
"To
suggest that members of the public can effectively pursue their rights
in these cases is patently absurd. Although I am more than capable of
understanding procedure and conducting Internet research, the value
Robert Campbell brought to bear on this case with his experience of
these matters and knowing which ‘lever to press’ was incalculable
and I am certain this result would not have been achieved without his
input. Applying for continuing NHS care funding without specialist legal
support puts the claimant at a massive disadvantage"
Back
to the top |
| CASE
HISTORY
Re:
Mr “TD”
Mr TD’s family contacted us in early 2008 when Mr TD was in hospital
having to undergo a blood transfusion every three to four weeks.
He was bedridden since contracting cellulitis in October 2007. Since
admission to hospital, he became incontinent and had a long term catheter
in place and was also on a drip for hydration which, because of problems
with veins in his hands, he then had to have through his stomach. Mr TD
regularly needed oxygen as his stats were unstable and he battled
pneumonia in November and again in December. Previously, he had a heart
attack some 12 years previously and two strokes, the last of which left
him with a form of epilepsy for which he took Epilim. Mr TD’s blood
disorder was of the type that could turn to leukaemia and when his blood
pressure dropped, he was very prone to infection. On top of this, he also
contracted MRSA shortly after entering hospital.
In October 2007, Mr TD was assessed by the Local PCT as ineligible for NHS
continuing care funding but eligible for 24-hour nursing care. The family
did not agree and appealed the decision. Nursing staff kept insisting Mr
TD was “stable” when it was clear to the family he was not and there
was enormous pressure to have him discharged from hospital. The family
were particularly concerned that Mr TD’s blood pressure could drop very
suddenly causing an immediate need for transfusions which he would only be
able to obtain in hospital.
The family resolved to fight the ineligibility decision “every step of
the way”.
After persevering, in May 2008 the PCT decided Mr TD’s primary need for
care was a health need and granted fully funded NHS care.
Back
to the top |
| CASE
HISTORY
Re:
Application for Continuing NHS Care Funding – Mrs MK
Mrs
MK was admitted to a care home in 2004, suffering with dementia and
associated problems. Her health deteriorated and she became doubly
incontinent and developed deep vein thrombosis and an ulcer which became
infected with MRSA. She subsequently had several falls, injuring her eye
and received a cut to her head.
Initially,
the local PCT assessed Mrs MK as high band Registered Nursing Care
Contribution but maintained that her primary need for care was not a
health need and, therefore, she was not eligible for continuing NHS care
funding.
The
family were not prepared to let the matter rest and, armed with an
Enduring Power of Attorney, Mrs MK’s daughter instructed Robert Campbell
& Company to pursue an application for continuing NHS care funding.
In
June 2008, the local PCT confirmed that, having conducted a
multidisciplinary assessment under the National Framework for NHS
Continuing Healthcare and NHS funded Nursing Care guidance, Mrs K did at
that point qualify for NHS Continuing Care funding on the basis that her
primary need for care was a health need.
The
issue that now arises is whether the family consider Mrs MK’s primary
health need arose earlier than June 2008 as the care fees expended since
admission to the care home in 2004 are approximately £120,000 and, if the
primary need for care arose earlier, then an application for retrospective
continuing care funding will be pursued. Any such claim would involve a
claim for interest and a head of damage relating to the forced sale of Mrs
MK’s house to pay for care fees.
Note
Since dictating this it has been decided to pursue a retrospective claim
for restitution of fees in the order of £120,000.
Back
to the top |
| CASE
HISTORY
Re:
‘MP’
Extract from excellent letter of initial instruction:
“Margaret’s primary need is obviously a health need. If she did not
have dementia she would still be able to look after herself in her own
home, doing her own cooking and cleaning and able to go shopping. She was
perfectly independent and able to do all these things until the early
months of last year (2007) and in fact she only stopped going to her
hairdresser around April 2007.
Margaret failed a mini-memory state examination (score nil) at the end of
March 2007. It was about this time that she started ‘seeing things’
such as imaginary visitors, people hiding in her kitchen and people
sleeping on her couch but it did not seem to bother her overmuch.
The dementia seemed to progress very quickly. I took her to see her doctor
in January 2007 because she had been incontinent at Christmas; she was
bright and quite coherent but was developing memory problems. I arranged
for carers to help her at the end of February, although she was opposed to
the idea and carried on doing her own shopping, cleaning etc. She was
until the middle of last year capable of independent living and in fact
was happily living alone with carers visiting and using Meals on Wheels
until her fall on 21 January this year.
There was no injury but she was admitted to hospital because she was
dehydrated and also had a minor urinary tract infection. Shortly after
being admitted she caught a hospital borne noro virus infection which
seriously affected her with diarrhoea vomiting etc. She became (and
remains) doubly incontinent, as her confusion increased rapidly. She also
lost considerable weight. During the two months she was in hospital she
lost 9.9 kg around 20% of her body weight (she continues to lose weight
and is now down to 38.6 kg).
After the infection subsided she had various examinations and was seen by
specialists including the hospital’s psychiatric nurse. She was rejected
for rehabilitation or physiotherapy as she was unable to understand or
follow instructions. Drips to rehydrate her were tried but abandoned as
she pulled out the cannulae. She also pulled out indwelling urinary
catheters. Prior to discharge she had a FACE assessment which describes
her need for 24 hour care as critical.
While being considered for discharge the ‘NHS Continuing Healthcare
Needs Checklist’ indicated that a full health needs assessment (DST) was
required and this was duly carried out by the hospital multi-disciplinary
team.
This has two ‘severe’ and five ‘high’ scores which according to
the DST Guidelines requires ‘clear recommendation of eligibility to NHS
Continuing Healthcare’ unless there are exceptional circumstances.
This assessment was fully discussed with my daughter and me before being
signed off by the discharge co-ordinator. She pointed out that the
recommendation was for fully funded care but it would need to be verified
by the PCT.
Incidentally at the end of the DST is a statement that if there are delays
the Panel may request up to date information. There is no mention of
carrying out a further full assessment.
Around 10-11 March we heard that Margaret had been declined for fully
funded care and received the material from the PCT on 25 March.”
After a battle, in June 2008 Margaret was awarded NHS Continuing Care
funding.
Maurice Trimmer
Back
to the top |
| CASE
HISTORY
I am
attorney for my father who was admitted to a nursing home early in 2005.
At
that time the local Primary Care Trust had conducted an assessment and
concluded that my father did not qualify for continuing NHS care and
instead assessed his registered nursing care contribution at the medium
band.
Given
my father’s condition I found this really quite extraordinary and in mid
2007 decided to obtain expert help in order to dispute this assessment.
Having been recommended to specialist healthcare solicitors Robert
Campbell of Robert Campbell and Company I passed over the papers and asked
Robert to pursue the matter for us.
Robert
initially wrote to the Trust demanding a fresh multi-disciplinary
assessment be conducted and, after obtaining the medical records, obtained
the report of an expert consultant geriatrician in support of the claim.
He was clearly of the view that my father’s primary need for care was a
health need, therefore, that he should be entitled to a fully funded NHS
continuing care package. With Robert’s help we appealed this decision
and were very pleased to hear, at the beginning of March, that continuing
NHS health care was awarded from 1 October 2007 and we are now instructing
Robert to pursue a claim for restitution for the period prior to this.
The
family are most grateful to Robert Campbell for his help in this matter
and there is no doubt in our minds that his knowledge, expertise and
tenacity in this minefield of NHS law and practice enabled us to win the
day. We have no hesitation in recommending Robert’s services to others
in similar positions and hope that our success will give encouragement in
what, to the uninitiated, is a quite daunting process. Whilst more that
happy to provide this case history and testimonial, I wish to remain
anonymous for personal reasons.
(Anon)
Back
to the top |
|
CASE
HISTORY
Our
mother went into a nursing home in February 2007 but, although she was
very poorly and required a great deal of health care, the local Primary
Care Trust refused to fund her placement. We were unhappy about this as we
had read that, where someone needed care because of their health, this
should be free on the NHS just as though they were in hospital.
We
felt very strongly about this and decided to find a specialist lawyer who
could represent mum. Fortunately we were introduced to Robert Campbell of
Robert Campbell & Company, a firm of solicitors specialising in
healthcare law and particularly Continuing Care claims.
Having
conducted an initial assessment without charge Robert took over the case
on his firm’s special fixed fee scheme and we were delighted when in
August 2007 the Trust finally confirmed mum’s eligibility for a fully
funded NHS Continuing Care package.
Sadly
mum passed away but, although the Trust has refunded us £11,000 paid in
care home fees, we have asked Robert to pursue a claim to recover the
£6,500 paid out in home care fees prior to mum’s admission to the care
home as we believe mum was eligible right from the day she required care.
We
are most grateful for Robert’s help and support. Very few solicitors
know of this area of law which is complex and requires specialist input.
We would have no hesitation in recommending Robert Campbell & Company’
services to anyone else in a similar position to ourselves.
Anon,
York
See
up-date below.
Back
to the top |
|
Mum
(DECEASED) – AN UPDATE
Mum
went into a nursing home in February 2007 and, although she was very
poorly and required a great deal of healthcare, the local primary care
trust refused to fund her placement. The family were unhappy about this as
they had read that, where someone needed care because of their health,
this should be free on the NHS as though they were in hospital.
The
family felt very strongly about this and decided to find a specialist
lawyer who could represent Mum. They were introduced to Robert Campbell of
Robert Campbell & Company, a firm of solicitors specialising in
healthcare law and particularly continuing care claims.
Having
conducted an initial assessment without charge Robert took over the case
on his firm’s special fixed fee scheme and we were delighted when, in
August 2007, the Trust finally confirmed Mum’s eligibility for fully
funded NHS continuing care.
Sadly
Mum passed away and, although the Trust refunded some £11,000 paid in
care home fees the family instructed Robert Campbell to pursue a claim for
the £6,500 paid out in homecare fees prior to Mum's admission to the care
home as they believed that her eligibility arose earlier than her
admission to the care home.
In
January 2009 the Trust wrote to Robert Campbell & Company confirming
eligibility from April 2006 and Robert Campbell & Company are in the
course of submitting a claim for restitution of fees for the ensuing
period.
"Once
again we are most grateful for Robert’s help and support. Very few
solicitors know of this area of law which is complex and requires
specialist input. We would have no hesitation in recommending Robert
Campbell & Company’s services to anyone else in a similar position
to ourselves."
Anon.
York
See
original case history
Back
to the top |
| |
|
Back
to the top
|
 |
Robert
Campbell & Co., Greenhills, Winsham, Braunton EX33 2LX
Authorised and Regulated by the Solicitors Regulation
Authority. SRA No. 00327671 |
| © |
web
content copyright © Robert Campbell 2012 |
| web
design and code © 56kb.com 2012 |
|
|
|