Action Mesothelioma Day will take place in Manchester  on Friday 6 July 2012 at 12.30.p.m. at Lincoln Square, on Brazennose Street opposite the Manchester Town Hall.

There will be a release of sponsored doves in memory of those who have died from Mesothelioma at 12.30 and then there will be a public meeting at Manchester Town Hall between 1.p.m. and 2.p.m.

The meetings are very moving for me as I have represented many people who have suffered from Mesothelioma and their families.  As a solicitor you are invited into the home at a time of enormous upset and distress. You form not only a professional relationship but also a much closer relationship given the circumstances of the diagnosis of Mesothelioma.

I also get to see friends that I have probably not seen for some time.

The public meeting is always powerful well attended by Mesothelioma sufferers, their families and friends, professionals and MPs.  A public meeting like this gives impetus to the fight for justice for Mesothelioma sufferers and the protection of all people from the dangers of asbestos dust and galvanises action for the next year.

I continue to act for many Mesothelioma sufferers and sufferers from other asbestos related diseases.  If you would like any further information about Action Mesothelioma Day  or any other aspects of asbestos please contact Tony, Hazel or myself from the GMAVSG.

If you would like to know more about Mesothelioma Day please view this leaflet confirming the time, date and venue.

I also attach a copy letter confirming these details written by Tony Whitston and Hazel Bowden from the GMAVSG together with the Action Mesothelioma Day sponsorship form.

Michael was not operating on his own. He was with numerous colleagues who had been to man an Observation Post at a key section of strategic Route 611. It was a static location. The men had been there fore some time that day before Michael was shot. The location was known to MOD personnel including of course the Officer who situated them there.

From press reports this morning it would appear that the Sniper, Lance Corporal Malcolm Graham, was not aware of the Observation Post. The Mirror reports that Corporal Jonathan Dolton, Section Commander, has said that he knew of the post but that information was not passed onto his duty Soldiers that night.

It is likely that the Inquest will look at the handover information including stag handover briefs. It may also be useful to hear evidence from Military Personnel who were on duty in the Remote Sangar before the change of Personnel to find out their knowledge about colleagues at the Observation Post.

The same can be said for knowledge about the Restricted Firing Line. The fatal shot was fired over the line.

Evidence is yet to be heard from vital witnesses which will hopefully clarify some of the current areas of confusion.

Press enquiries to contact:-

Geraldine McCool – 07718743740

Click here to view Military Inquests page

Mph solicitors routinely successfully pursue compensation claims arising out of complex road traffic collisions involving fatal injury cases and maximum severity injury cases. We also have a dedicated team who pursue less severe injury cases which can arise our of  similar complex factual circumstances.

Tinnitus is a condition that can result from a range of underlying causes: neurological damage, abnormal sounds in the ear canal, ear infections, foreign objects in the ear, nasal allergies or wax build up.

Tinnitus may be an accompaniment of sensorineural hearing loss or congenital hearing loss, however it may be a side effect of medication.  However, the most common cause is noise induced hearing loss.

Excessive noise can be generated from heavy machinery, factory processes, tools usage such as road breakers, chainsaws and other heavy hand tools.  Unprotected exposure to gunfire, explosions, loud engines can all cause damage to the ears.  Damage can also be caused from excessive noise where the noise exposure is in the ear for example, head sets.  The noise can be intermittent, it can be constant, it can be a one off very loud noise such as gunfire or an explosion.

AT MPH Solicitors we have great experience in dealing with noise induced hearing loss and tinnitus cases and are currently investigating in the region of 300 hearing loss and tinnitus cases acting on behalf of BT Engineers who have developed noise induced hearing loss and tinnitus arising of the use of oscillators and amplifiers during the course of their employment with BT.

We also represent service personnel who have been exposed to excessive noise whilst serving in the Army, RAF and Navy.  We work with experts in the field in securing compensation for injured victims.

Yesterday, ahead of the ‘whiplash summit’ the AA announced that Insurers paid out more than £2billion last year on neck injuries even though thousands were bogus. Simon Douglas, director of AA Insurance, claimed that ‘the present dysfunctional system has spawned a fraudulent multi-million-pound “cash for crash” industry.’

Plans discussed with the Government included tackling questionable medical evidence to make it ‘quicker, cheaper and easier for valid injury claims to be dealt with through the small claims court’.

Whilst this may appears at first glance to be perfectly valid reasoning against the growing number of claim, in my eyes this would put an injured person at an unfair disadvantage from the outset, not only being left to deal with the consequences of the accident, but then having to face a ‘David and Goliath’ battle to pursue their claim through the small claims court without any legal representation against big business and Insurance companies. In my experience this will bar the genuine injured person from pursuing a claim in the first place.

Chief Executive of APIL (Association of Personal Injury Lawyers) said in an interview on BBC News 24 “The small claims court is not the place for the injured person. “Firstly they may have to pay up to £500 to pursue a claim in the small claims court at a time when they are injured and probably unable to work.

The small claims track limit of £1000 for Personal Injury claims is in place for a reason. These claims often raise complicated and technical issues even in the most ‘straight forward’ of cases. By raising the limit to £5000 most claims will be caught up in the small claims track.

We at MPH Solicitors are yet to come across a fraudulant whiplash claim in our practice and work very hard for those genuinely injured to get them the compensation they deserve.  Remember that an accident just doesn’t affect an individual but also those around him or her. If the main breadwinner in a family is injured who is then going to pay the bills, the mortgage and meet the day-to-day expenses of the family?  I have recently become a dad for the first time and I understand, especially in this current economic climate, the impact an accident can have on the family.

Insurers have a wealth of information about fraudulent claimants at their fingertips and lawyers could play a real part in helping to weed out fraud even further if insurers would only share that information. Unfortunately, they are not willing to share it, and the Government needs to ask the industry why.

I know that there are people out there caught up in the populist rhetoric by the insurance industry who want people to think that there is a ‘compensation culture’ and lawyers are involved only to make money for themselves. To them I would say that the current system for dealing with road traffic accident claims was thrashed out with the insurance industry over 2 years ago with legal costs curtailed and limited, by agreement, and yet insurance premiums continue to rise. Why? Why has there has never been a corresponding drop in premiums?

Altaf Patel, a member of APIL, works within the PI department of MPH Solicitors. You can speak to him by contacting us on 0845 619 1161.

At her Trial the Manual Handling Regulations were found to apply and it was held by the Judge that although she had received training when she started her job she had not received any continuing or refresher training. The judge found her injury had been caused by a lack of that refresher training.

The Hotelier appealed. On Appeal it was agreed the test under reg.4(1)(b)(ii) was of reasonable practicability and not strict liability. It was agreed that it was proper and acceptable to say that continuing or refresher training was an appropriate step in reducing the risk of injury to the lowest level reasonably practicable. It being undeniably reasonably practicable, cheap and easy.

In her evidence the claimant had said that she had rolled the bed, not lifted it. The critical question in allowing the Appeal was therefore would a reminder of the well-known lifting technique in the continuing or refresher training have prevented this injury where the Claimant had not lifted the bed but rolled it instead?

If the claimant had lifted the bed there would be a clear basis to say that a reminder of the appropriate lifting technique would have helped prevent the injury. The judge would have been entitled to say that a lifting injury would have been prevented by using a different lifting technique. However there had been no medical evidence on whether use of the lifting technique would have prevented injury the claimant had “rolled” the bed.

The Judge at first instance had erred in recording that the claimant had changed her mind in the course of the hearing to say that she had lifted the bed.  By incorrectly finding that the claimant had lifted the bed, this in turn brought causation into play and the judge at first instance had filled the gap in the medical evidence even though there had been no basis for doing so. The Appeal was allowed.

Raising the small claims limit will deprive many innocent injured people of legal advice.

The Minister has also held recent discussions about the possibility of introducing an accreditation system for doctors who assess whiplash claims.  Proposals are to be outlined in a consultation document this summer.

Further announcements are expected later today.

Sara was admitted to hospital when she was 37 weeks pregnant with her daughter Isabella Eva.  Sara’s blood pressure was dangerously low as she was actually bleeding internally.  Isabella was delivered by way of a caesarian section while the doctors tried to find out why Sara was losing so much blood.  An operation determined that the bleeding was coming from Sara’s liver due to a benign tumour.

Surgeons worked solidly for over eight hours to repair Sara’s major bleed and they were, thankfully, ultimately successful.  But during that time, Sara needed a total of 56 pints of blood to keep her alive.  Emergency supplies were rushed in from two nearby hospitals and from the NHS Blood Service itself.

To put this into perspective, an average blood donor will give just less than one pint of blood at each session, and they can only give blood four times a year.  Added to that, lots of people are ineligible to give blood for a variety of reasons.

As a regular donor myself, I can reassure any potential donors that it is really not bad at all, and that you will always get a good selection of biscuits and a cup of tea afterwards!

For more information visit www.blood.co.uk

The Claimant was a front seat passenger in a car where the driver had lost control causing it to leave the road and end up on the verge as a result of negligently driving too fast and failing to control the car.

The Claimant sustained soft tissue injuries along with a cerebral brain injury to the frontal lobe area of the brain and in particular a psychiatric reaction to the accident, cognitive and behavioural symptoms including Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, OCD, depression and anxiety affecting his self esteem and social life.

Prior to the accident the Claimant had played cricket at a high level including for County teams and he had prospects of pursuing a successful career in the game. He also argued that but for the accident he would have gone onto university and pursued either a graduate career in sales or a career as a gas-registered plumber. His father ran a plumbing business and he was likely to take this over.

The Defendant argued otherwise and that he had not sustained a brain injury, had suffered no more than minor physical injuries; that the account put to the Court regarding his pre-accident level of abilities and progress was overstated and that there was no substantial change in his abilities, character or earning capacity.

The Court found in the Claimants favour agreeing with his evidence. It also found that he was now psychologically vulnerable if he suffered further trauma in the future and that if he became unemployed he would be handicapped in seeking work.

This case shows the importance of gathering the right experts to prepare evidence to be presented to the Court. At MPH Solicitors we have at our disposal some of the finest experts in the Country to assist and report on injuries sustained by our clients, which is one of the reasons, we are able to obtain maximum levels of compensation and why we are so highly regarded amongst our peers.