Subscribe to Search results

Some applicants who admitted to intranasal or oral drug consumption, but not to injection, were denied on the basis of intravenous drug use, even though their medical records contained no reference to any such use.

Published on:

Mark Mildred was told by Nicholas Fish when he began working for the Skipton Panel and asked what sort of decision was wanted, to provide "A letter, keeping it as brief and simple as you can."

Published on:

Mark Mildred was not initially given, nor did he ask for, a copy of the Agency Agreement under which the Skipton Fund operated under the Department of Health.

Published on:

William Vineall stated in his evidence: "we think the testing regime that was established, I think in about 1972, for hepatitis B was sufficient to ensure that people with hepatitis B wouldn't be, you know, subject to the risk of infected blood, and that's why it's never been part of any scheme".

Published on:

Dame Marcela Contreras advised that where GP records for the time were available, they may have included discharge letters which may have referred to transfusions, but equally may not.

Published on:

Dr Patricia Hewitt suggested that though records should have been made to show that a transfusion had been given, and identifying numbers of the transfused units recorded, practice about this was often casual, and records were often not retained for the length of time necessary to help show some years later that a transfusion had taken place.

Published on:

The Secretary of State for Health, Alan Milburn, was opposed to a compensation scheme or payments, largely on the basis that they would set a precedent, especially since his view was that no fault had been demonstrated.

Published on:

Susan Deacon ordered an inquiry into whether people with haemophilia in Scotland had been exposed to unnecessary risk of Hepatitis C through infected blood products in the mid 1980s.

Published on:

The Health and Community Care Committee of the Scottish Parliament considered the Haemophilia Society petition calling for a public inquiry, and a second petition from a person who had contracted Hepatitis C as a result of a blood transfusion during a routine operation in 1989.

Published on:

The Health and Community Care Committee called Susan Deacon to give evidence on 25 October 2000.

Published on:

Alan Milburn told the Treasury that the legal advice for the Government was that there was a very limited chance of success following the recommendations in the judgment of the High Court (in England) in "A and Others v the National Blood Authority" and the decision should not be appealed.

Published on:

The Skipton Appeals Panel met quarterly. A guidance note was provided to applicants which clarified that they could provide evidence of a transfusion.

Published on:

In "A and Others v the National Blood Authority" Mr Justice Burton concluded that routine screening ought to have been introduced by 1 March 1990, and surrogate testing should have been in place by March 1988.

Published on:

An amendment to the Skipton Fund occurred in 2016 which made specific clauses applicable to each UK nation.

Published on:

The Scottish Executive announced that an expert group, to be chaired by a Court of Session Judge, Lord Donald Ross, was to be set up to look at the pros and cons of a system of financial and other support for those harmed by health service treatment where the NHS was not at fault.

Published on:

The report which Susan Deacon had requested was delivered to her in draft by departmental officials. They sought to steer her "very firmly in the direction of not agreeing to compensation or special priority treatment for Hep C sufferers who may have been infected by NHS treatment", keeping in step with her English counterparts.

Published on:

Malcolm Chisholm said he would make £20,000 available for those diagnosed with Hepatitis C, with a further £25,000 paid to sufferers who developed conditions such as cirrhosis and cancer of the liver.

Published on:

Following the Secretary of State's agreement to the various component parts of the payment scheme, a Scottish email threw into doubt payment for people who had cleared Hepatitis C following treatment.

Published on:

Generally those who cleared Hepatitis C would statistically be likely to do so within the first six months. There was no opportunity for a person to explain why they considered that they had continued to suffer Hepatitis C infection beyond six months, nor could the Skipton Fund examine their evidence on the point. This was a function of the design of the Fund, and the way in which the Department of Health set out to operate it

Published on:

The note of an advisory group meeting on hepatitis recorded that "the experts were asked for their initial thoughts on the medical trigger for the second (higher) payment. It was felt that this should be a recognised stage of the disease, rather than subjective symptoms of illness."

Published on: