Boy of 6 awarded £37m compensation by the NHS

[jamesmark]

Read this story today, whilst this is truly heartbreaking for the boy and parents. I cannot get my head around £37m. Sure he will now get all the care he needs paid for for life and so he should, but that does not equate to £37m!!

 

I hope that it will be closely monitored and the money strictly spent on items directly associated to his care, wellbeing, education etc, and not spent on kitting the family and other family members with new cars and houses, whilst they top up their tans with constant holidays.

 

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/boy-6-awarded-record-37m-185247261.html

[Al Massey]

"The boy will now receive the lump sum payout in addition to annual, index linked and tax free payments to cover the costs of the 24-hour care he will need for life."

 

That £37 M is to spend on whatever he wants as all care will be paid for.

[marbleapple]

I imagine that the vast majority of the money is held by the Court of Protection and the parents won't have access to it.

 

To be clear, the 'award' isn't an award/windfall. The child won't have it to spend. Its a sum awarded to cover the child's future care needs. The quantum is calculated by numerous independant care specialists who in turn will be challenged by the NHS' own experts.

 

I don't know the background of the case but at £37m I can only assume that the needs of the poor child must be extreme indeed. 24 hour care; probably 2 carers, special adaptations to house, special care equipment etc.

 

One does wonder whether I would want to live with such problems.

[Scooter]

Depend on how the £37M works out and how profound the disability is.......

 

"The boy will now receive the lump sum payout in addition to annual, index linked and tax free payments to cover the costs of the 24-hour care he will need for life.

 

Mr Witcomb said the value of the settlement, calculated over the boy's lifetime, comes to more than £37m."

 

If they have calculated a high life expectancy then I can see how the costs will mount up, in year 60 something that cost £1 will be £6 at only 3% inflation a year.

 

So assuming a modest 3% inflation rate, and the average life expectancy of 79, then I calculate an annual sum of £145K from day one and for life?

 

That still sounds a lot I know but I have experience of quadriplegic disability, she is at college and the Monday to Friday live in position that's next to a regular 6th form college comes in at over £100K per annum. So no additional weekend care or disabled adaptation works or wheelchairs or vehicles etc and this is just for the additional 'running' and excludes any actual element for the damage done, ie the impact (absolutely huge) on the family as well as the individual. The impact really is something hard to imagine without seeing it first hand, the increased work, the sleep deprivation, family stresses, it's life changing for all.

[Scooter]

"The boy will now receive the lump sum payout in addition to annual, index linked and tax free payments to cover the costs of the 24-hour care he will need for life."

 

That £37 M is to spend on whatever he wants as all care will be paid for.

 

I don't think that is the case

 

"Mr Witcomb said the value of the settlement, calculated over the boy's lifetime, comes to more than £37m."

 

So definitely not all up front AND care on top. Paper is maximising the numbers for effect (not saying that's bad but if it were this up front and then care on top they'd be reporting that total figure - they sensationalise that's what they do)

[Sheefa]

Factor in non-employent on the open job market (Smith's & Manchester payment for disabilities) and it's quite easy to rack up millions.

 

That £37m is not a lump payment on top.

 

 

[j_jza80]

£37m is approx 10% of what the whole, annual, national NHS budget was in the late 40s. I'm sure there will be a few fatcat consultants and middle managers with their snouts in that £37m trough.

 

Tragic case for the boy and his family, no one shouod have to experience this.

[Al Massey]

I don't think that is the case

 

"Mr Witcomb said the value of the settlement, calculated over the boy's lifetime, comes to more than £37m."

 

So definitely not all up front AND care on top. Paper is maximising the numbers for effect (not saying that's bad but if it were this up front and then care on top they'd be reporting that total figure - they sensationalise that's what they do)

 

How can they quote a figure that is index linked and tax free to cover just his medical costs when no one would ever know what the cost will be next year, let alone for the rest of his life?

 

addition to annual, index linked and tax free payments to cover the costs of the 24-hour care he will need for life.

 

I quoted what is written, exactly in the article.

Edited October 10, 2018 by Al Massey (see edit history)

[Scooter]

You quoted line one of the total quote below, and then assumed the lump sum was for the £37M, when in fact the lump sum is not disclosed, as the second line makes it clear that the £37M is the cost over his lifetime?

 

"The boy will now receive the lump sum payout in addition to annual, index linked and tax free payments to cover the costs of the 24-hour care he will need for life.

 

Mr Witcomb (boys Barrister) said the value of the settlement, calculated over the boy's lifetime, comes to more than £37m."

 

As to how they quote/agree figures then I presume as in all compensation cases there is negotiation and the NHS want to settle once and for all as the actual cost may end up being far higher, but then we don't know the ins and outs of the future payment structure, to make an accurate guess.

 

 

Explained better in this link.....

 

http://www.nationalhealthexecutive.com/News/record-37m-nhs-compensation-pay-out-for-brain-injured-boy

Edited October 10, 2018 by Scooter (see edit history)

[jamesmark]

Don't get me wrong on expense and I know it will rack up. I truly believe this poor lad should get the best of everything for life, but even that would not equate to £37m unless they are saying, he would be wined and dined if the tragic events did not happen.

 

It is bad of me to think the family may actually be rubbing their hands, but the money should be used to enhance the poor wee boys life and yeah if that's holiday then do it, or require a better home for him and family, then do it, but not all the time or family home abroad per se.

 

I know what am trying to say, just not coming out right lol

[Al Massey]

You quoted line one of the total quote below, and then assumed the lump sum was for the £37M, when in fact the lump sum is not disclosed, as the second line makes it clear that the £37M is the cost over his lifetime?

 

"The boy will now receive the lump sum payout in addition to annual, index linked and tax free payments to cover the costs of the 24-hour care he will need for life.

 

Mr Witcomb (boys Barrister) said the value of the settlement, calculated over the boy's lifetime, comes to more than £37m."

 

As to how they quote/agree figures then I presume as in all compensation cases there is negotiation and the NHS want to settle once and for all as the actual cost may end up being far higher, but then we don't know the ins and outs of the future payment structure, to make an accurate guess.

 

 

Explained better in this link.....

 

http://www.nationalhealthexecutive.com/News/record-37m-nhs-compensation-pay-out-for-brain-injured-boy

 

 

Yes, you're right, the other link explains it better by saying made up of and not in addition too.

[Scooter]

Don't get me wrong on expense and I know it will rack up. I truly believe this poor lad should get the best of everything for life, but even that would not equate to £37m unless they are saying, he would be wined and dined if the tragic events did not happen.

 

It is bad of me to think the family may actually be rubbing their hands, but the money should be used to enhance the poor wee boys life and yeah if that's holiday then do it, or require a better home for him and family, then do it, but not all the time or family home abroad per se.

 

I know what am trying to say, just not coming out right lol

 

I know where you are coming from, but it's not £37M now they can invest etc it's being drip (a pretty large drip) fed to ensure his constant care.

 

My calculations earlier presumed no lump sum, with a lump sum of say £750,000 it would reduce to approx. £131K pa (all a bit fag packet calcs)

 

"So assuming a modest 3% inflation rate, and the average life expectancy of 79, then I calculate an annual sum of £145K from day one and for life?"

 

We don't know lots of aspects of the agreement, but when you project 60 years with inflation the costs are skewed/high when considering just 'today'.....in my calcs the £131K in the first year = £1.2M in the final year after 60+ years of 3% inflation, ie those figures represent the same spending power in their actual year, if you see what I mean!?

[Scooter]

So it comes down to is in the region of £131K per annum reasonable? seems a lot but it all depends on the level of care required.

[The Raven]

So it comes down to is in the region of £131K per annum reasonable? seems a lot but it all depends on the level of care required.

 

 

I don’t how badly this kid is affected but, as most of you know my son is classed as serverly autistic with global delay sensory processing disorder and a slew of other things. I guess he would be classed as needing 24 hour care. I don’t earn 140k a year we get by ok

[marbleapple]

my son is classed as serverly autistic with global delay sensory processing disorder and a slew of other things. I guess he would be classed as needing 24 hour care. I don’t earn 140k a year we get by ok

 

24 hour care usually means 24 hour medical care. The money is to pay for nurses, medical machinery etc.

 

 

"So assuming a modest 3% inflation rate, and the average life expectancy of 79, then I calculate an annual sum of £145K from day one and for life?"

 

We don't know lots of aspects of the agreement, but when you project 60 years with inflation the costs are skewed/high when considering just 'today'.....in my calcs the £131K in the first year = £1.2M in the final year after 60+ years of 3% inflation, ie those figures represent the same spending power in their actual year, if you see what I mean!?

 

There is a defined math equation around life expectancy, multiplicands and the discount rate.

 

There is usually a general damages award (often a lump sum) for the actual one off injury and then special damages which takes account of future care needs, loss or earnings etc.

 

I suppose the thing I'm trying to say is that the figures might look huge but in reality they are calculated based on what the person 'needs' (not would like) and various experts on both sides of the table usually have to reach an agreement.

Edited October 11, 2018 by marbleapple (see edit history)

[Scooter]

I don’t how badly this kid is affected but, as most of you know my son is classed as serverly autistic with global delay sensory processing disorder and a slew of other things. I guess he would be classed as needing 24 hour care. I don’t earn 140k a year we get by ok

 

My partner has twins one is quadriplegic with cerebral palsy and one with mild aspergers and we don't get close to that income either so I hear you, but no one has been blamed for their circumstances, it just happened as did I suspect yours. So she gets some care assistance paid for and disabled living allowance but really nothing like this and she as you just have to keep soldiering on!

 

They have been robbed of their 'normal' little boy, and he's been robbed of a normal life, you know how draining it all can be, how it's just hard work physically and mentally 24/7 for primary carers, so while the award seems like they are laughing to the bank, I think we both know they'd swap it in an instant if they could turn back the clock to allow the correct treatment to be administered so he was fine.

 

Tough situation, with no winners