Writs to be Issued Against VS and BA for DVT Claims Today
Guest
Posts: n/a
Writs to be Issued Against VS and BA for DVT Claims Today
From today's Scotsman - as if our industry doesn't have enough to worry about, here;s something else which will drain it of millions... 
[b]Airlines face DVT legal action
Tanya Thompson Home Affairs Correspondent
([email protected])
HIGH Court writs are to be issued against two major airlines over alleged cases of air travel-related deep vein thrombosis.
Today’s launch of test cases against Virgin Airlines and British Airways is likely to lead to "group litigation", or a class action, against many airlines.
It could open the floodgates to hundreds of other claims, and carriers could face a compensation bill of more than £10 million for allegedly failing to warn British travellers about the dangers of the condition, which may cause potentially lethal blood clots.
DVT is believed to affect passengers who sit in cramped conditions for long periods without exercise - so-called economy class syndrome. But scientists are divided over whether there is a link between flying on commercial planes and developing clots.
Watford-based Collins Solicitors, which acts for more than 150 alleged victims, have expertise in transport litigation and recently represented victims of the Southall and Ladbroke Grove train disasters.
The lawyers will issue writs on behalf of Lyn Walcott, from Benfleet, Essex, whose husband, Nigel, died in October last year following a BA flight from Barbados to London Gatwick, and Peter Wilson, of Harpenden, Hertfordshire, who developed DVT following a Virgin flight from Hong Kong to London Heathrow in October 1998.
Last night, Gerda Goldinger, a lawyer with Collins Solicitors, said if the writs were successful it could lead to hundreds of other claims. She said: "Most of the people who have approached us didn’t make the link between the blood clots and air travel.
"We have no idea exactly how many people have been affected by this but the industry needs to start answering some questions. By raising this action, the airlines will have to look at the problem of DVT in more depth."
Lawyers believe airlines could be forced to redesign their aircraft to make them more comfortable during long-haul flights.
"We want the industry to look at what has happened in the past and see how things can be improved," added Ms Goldinger.
In Australia, 2,700 passengers are seeking damages from airlines after suffering blood clots. A BA spokeswoman said: "We have only received pre-action correspondence from Collins Solicitors at this stage - we have not received a formal claim.
"We would like to reassure the travelling public that BA takes the health and safety of its passengers extremely seriously."
BA said that all passengers were provided with travel health information, including details about specific exercises to help improve circulation and prevent DVT. However, they insisted there was no proven link between flying and DVT.
"The fact is that there is no conclusive evidence to link DVT with flying per se. However, we know that it is linked with long periods of immobility, and that can be on a train or any other form of transport," added the spokeswoman. "But we are keen to learn more about DVT and whether there is anything about the cabin environment which may be a factor, and therefore we are committed to becoming involved in further research into DVT."
A spokesman for Virgin Atlantic Airways refused to comment until they had seen details of the case.
Earlier this year, the family of Scotland’s first victim of DVT launched a legal action against British Airways.
Alistair Henderson, from Lanarkshire, is seeking damages after his wife, Shirley, died from the illness following a lengthy flight to Singapore. Mrs Henderson, 46, died of a massive haemorrhage after falling ill during the trip. Now Mr Henderson wants the airline to accept responsibility for her death. His wife was flying out to join him on their wedding anniversary when she developed the blood clot.
Tanya Thompson Home Affairs Correspondent
([email protected])
HIGH Court writs are to be issued against two major airlines over alleged cases of air travel-related deep vein thrombosis.
Today’s launch of test cases against Virgin Airlines and British Airways is likely to lead to "group litigation", or a class action, against many airlines.
It could open the floodgates to hundreds of other claims, and carriers could face a compensation bill of more than £10 million for allegedly failing to warn British travellers about the dangers of the condition, which may cause potentially lethal blood clots.
DVT is believed to affect passengers who sit in cramped conditions for long periods without exercise - so-called economy class syndrome. But scientists are divided over whether there is a link between flying on commercial planes and developing clots.
Watford-based Collins Solicitors, which acts for more than 150 alleged victims, have expertise in transport litigation and recently represented victims of the Southall and Ladbroke Grove train disasters.
The lawyers will issue writs on behalf of Lyn Walcott, from Benfleet, Essex, whose husband, Nigel, died in October last year following a BA flight from Barbados to London Gatwick, and Peter Wilson, of Harpenden, Hertfordshire, who developed DVT following a Virgin flight from Hong Kong to London Heathrow in October 1998.
Last night, Gerda Goldinger, a lawyer with Collins Solicitors, said if the writs were successful it could lead to hundreds of other claims. She said: "Most of the people who have approached us didn’t make the link between the blood clots and air travel.
"We have no idea exactly how many people have been affected by this but the industry needs to start answering some questions. By raising this action, the airlines will have to look at the problem of DVT in more depth."
Lawyers believe airlines could be forced to redesign their aircraft to make them more comfortable during long-haul flights.
"We want the industry to look at what has happened in the past and see how things can be improved," added Ms Goldinger.
In Australia, 2,700 passengers are seeking damages from airlines after suffering blood clots. A BA spokeswoman said: "We have only received pre-action correspondence from Collins Solicitors at this stage - we have not received a formal claim.
"We would like to reassure the travelling public that BA takes the health and safety of its passengers extremely seriously."
BA said that all passengers were provided with travel health information, including details about specific exercises to help improve circulation and prevent DVT. However, they insisted there was no proven link between flying and DVT.
"The fact is that there is no conclusive evidence to link DVT with flying per se. However, we know that it is linked with long periods of immobility, and that can be on a train or any other form of transport," added the spokeswoman. "But we are keen to learn more about DVT and whether there is anything about the cabin environment which may be a factor, and therefore we are committed to becoming involved in further research into DVT."
A spokesman for Virgin Atlantic Airways refused to comment until they had seen details of the case.
Earlier this year, the family of Scotland’s first victim of DVT launched a legal action against British Airways.
Alistair Henderson, from Lanarkshire, is seeking damages after his wife, Shirley, died from the illness following a lengthy flight to Singapore. Mrs Henderson, 46, died of a massive haemorrhage after falling ill during the trip. Now Mr Henderson wants the airline to accept responsibility for her death. His wife was flying out to join him on their wedding anniversary when she developed the blood clot.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Manchester,uk
Posts: 283
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When the lawyers have finally stopped all forms of transport,communication and industry due to fear of litigation, I hope that the world decides that they are useless parasitical b******s and throws the whole lot of them of the nearest bridge.
Its enough to make you weep..
What do you call 100 dead lawyers? A good start!
Its enough to make you weep..
What do you call 100 dead lawyers? A good start!
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Currently Dubai
Posts: 173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure why you question his sexuality - all he's doing is quoting yet another thing that could cripple major airlines. Seems to me to be voicing concern rather than gloating in this case... This is the "Rumours & News" forum isn't it (unless you want to pursue a homosexuality rumor wrt The Guvnor?) 
quidquid excusatio prandium pro
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: New York
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ambulance-chasing legal tactics appear to have officially arrived in Europe. I find the timing sadly ironic, in the wake of the WTC atrocity the majority of American lawyers in a position to gain have respectfully backed off until a broader solution can be found. With profoundest respect to the unfortunate DVT victims and the terrible anguish of their families, how could the aviation industry have possibly foreseen this. Where and how, truthfully, should responsibility be apportioned? HoltCJ, are you out there?
Stormy weather ahead I fear, not sure the wings will hold up in this one.
Stormy weather ahead I fear, not sure the wings will hold up in this one.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Newcastle upon Tyne UK
Age: 67
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For these cases to succeed, foreseeability must be proved by the claimants (on the balance of probability). Stasis (immobility) has been recognised for decades to be associated with DVT, however, stasis occurs in many activities in life, and it would not necessarily have been forseen that airline travel was a specific risk. Furthermore, DVT occurs spontaneously, and is relatively rare in relation to air travel. In order to establish a definite causal relationship, a large controlled study with statistical validity would have to have been performed. Provided the airlines were not warned to carry out such a study, or worse, carry out studies and ignore the evidence, then I think it unlikely that liability can be proved.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Manchester,uk
Posts: 283
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where on earth is Remulak?.Guv,ignore this idiot,He's probably a lawyer.I dont always agree with you but you have written a lot of relevant stuff of late and truth often hurts.
Lawyer joke:
A lawyer fell off his boat whilst on a carribean fishing trip.All his colleagues back at the office were terribly upset of their workmate. Two weeks later, they received a telegram that he had been spotted in the water circling the sharks.
geddit?
Lawyer joke:
A lawyer fell off his boat whilst on a carribean fishing trip.All his colleagues back at the office were terribly upset of their workmate. Two weeks later, they received a telegram that he had been spotted in the water circling the sharks.
geddit?
quidquid excusatio prandium pro
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: New York
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello northern boy, we geddit Sunshine, there are other more fertile playpens where your comments would be well received.
Martinidoc, kind thanks for your thoughtful input. I assume, perhaps negligently, that studies of this nature have not been carried out in any meaningful way. Please correct me if I am in ignorance of the facts.
Assuming that a causal relationship can be successfully established, what, in your considered opinion, would be the eventual ramifications for the airline industry at large?
With Respect,
Bugg
Martinidoc, kind thanks for your thoughtful input. I assume, perhaps negligently, that studies of this nature have not been carried out in any meaningful way. Please correct me if I am in ignorance of the facts.
Assuming that a causal relationship can be successfully established, what, in your considered opinion, would be the eventual ramifications for the airline industry at large?
With Respect,
Bugg
Guest
Posts: n/a
bugg smasher - the ramifications are simple. Apart from multi-million dollar lawsuits, airlines will have to emulate American and create 'more room in coach'. This means taking out revenue seats which will of course increase prices.
Not too surprisingly, the charter airlines will be the worst hit on this (with their pitches of 28 inches or less) and given the price sensitivity of the British prol on his hols I suspect it's going to cause a number of charter operators to cut back fleets and therefore staffing.
Curiously, the Germans have never been happy with being treated like sardines and their charter airlines (including BY GmBH) have had to provide them with decent pitch, catering and service. More to the point though, they're prepared to pay for it.
brokepilot - with your amazingly mature attitude and charming schoolboyish humour, I'm at a loss to understand why you're obviously unemployable; hence broke?
northern boy - yep, heard a variant of that one where various people were chucked off a lifeboat and were chomped by sharks until it came to the lawyer's turn. The sharks left him alone - professional courtesy!
Not too surprisingly, the charter airlines will be the worst hit on this (with their pitches of 28 inches or less) and given the price sensitivity of the British prol on his hols I suspect it's going to cause a number of charter operators to cut back fleets and therefore staffing.
Curiously, the Germans have never been happy with being treated like sardines and their charter airlines (including BY GmBH) have had to provide them with decent pitch, catering and service. More to the point though, they're prepared to pay for it.
brokepilot - with your amazingly mature attitude and charming schoolboyish humour, I'm at a loss to understand why you're obviously unemployable; hence broke?
northern boy - yep, heard a variant of that one where various people were chucked off a lifeboat and were chomped by sharks until it came to the lawyer's turn. The sharks left him alone - professional courtesy!
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Newcastle upon Tyne UK
Age: 67
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It may be interesting to know that for example orthopaedic surgeons cannot come to a consensus view on whether DVT prophylaxis is of benefit following surgery, even though there is a proven increased risk of DVT associated with surgery.
The final point therefore is even assuming liability can be established ( and personally I think this unlikely) the final link in the chain of causation would have to be that the claimant could demonstrate that if the "calf exercises" now being advocated had been employed, that the risk of DVT would have been significantly reduced.
Since the evidence is far from clear cut in surgery, even where more invasive prophylaxis with injectable anticoagulants is concerned, it is unlikely that significant benefit could be proved for calf exercises by the claimant.
The only other way that this final hurdle might be overcome would be if the claimant could prove (on the balance of probability) that had they been told they would that had they known of the small risk they would have avoided flying.
What would be the likely outcome of all of this if liability could be established?
The majority of DVTs occur silently, in other words they do not give rise to any signs or symptoms, but can be detected using ultrasonography or plethysmography. Only a small number give rise to calf pain and swelling, and only a very small number go on to pulmonary embolus and death.
The "damage" to an individual is therefore relatively minor in most cases , and in a few unfortunates who die, the compensation is relatively low compared to settlements where diasability has to be compensated.
One final point, if liability were to be established on the basis of the general principle that stasis increases risk of DVT, it might be argued that the government through its public health doctors might be vicariously liable not only for air travel, but also for other longdistance cramped methods of coneyance, maybe even the car!
The final point therefore is even assuming liability can be established ( and personally I think this unlikely) the final link in the chain of causation would have to be that the claimant could demonstrate that if the "calf exercises" now being advocated had been employed, that the risk of DVT would have been significantly reduced.
Since the evidence is far from clear cut in surgery, even where more invasive prophylaxis with injectable anticoagulants is concerned, it is unlikely that significant benefit could be proved for calf exercises by the claimant.
The only other way that this final hurdle might be overcome would be if the claimant could prove (on the balance of probability) that had they been told they would that had they known of the small risk they would have avoided flying.
What would be the likely outcome of all of this if liability could be established?
The majority of DVTs occur silently, in other words they do not give rise to any signs or symptoms, but can be detected using ultrasonography or plethysmography. Only a small number give rise to calf pain and swelling, and only a very small number go on to pulmonary embolus and death.
The "damage" to an individual is therefore relatively minor in most cases , and in a few unfortunates who die, the compensation is relatively low compared to settlements where diasability has to be compensated.
One final point, if liability were to be established on the basis of the general principle that stasis increases risk of DVT, it might be argued that the government through its public health doctors might be vicariously liable not only for air travel, but also for other longdistance cramped methods of coneyance, maybe even the car!
quidquid excusatio prandium pro
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: New York
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello Martinidoc, I do not have the requisite experience to determine whether you are a lawyer with medical qualifications, a doctor with legal training, or, frighteningly, all of the above.
I understand that a very experienced law firm has taken this case, surely they must be aware of the facts as outlined in your post and the probability that such an action would ultimately fail. Do they see the possibility of an out of court settlement as a final and profitable outcome? And without wishing to invoke the specter of ethics and its highly mobile goalposts, is it conceivable, as has been known to happen this side of the Atlantic, they take the case merely in order to provide work for themselves?
The extent to which the airline industry will suffer collateral damage is as yet unknown, but as there are quite large sums of money involved here one thing at least is certain, the lawyers will profit handsomely.
I understand that a very experienced law firm has taken this case, surely they must be aware of the facts as outlined in your post and the probability that such an action would ultimately fail. Do they see the possibility of an out of court settlement as a final and profitable outcome? And without wishing to invoke the specter of ethics and its highly mobile goalposts, is it conceivable, as has been known to happen this side of the Atlantic, they take the case merely in order to provide work for themselves?
The extent to which the airline industry will suffer collateral damage is as yet unknown, but as there are quite large sums of money involved here one thing at least is certain, the lawyers will profit handsomely.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: London
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bugg Smasher (and to those others of you who seem a little confused about the lawyers' role in all this): it works like this.
You are a lawyer. A client walks into your office and tells you he wants to bring a claim against an airline because he has suffered DVT. You examine the merits of his claim and evaluate the chances of success. Then you tell the client. At that point, he decides whether he wants to continue or not.
There seems to be a perception out there that this sort of litigation is "driven" by the lawyers - of course it's not. As a lawyer, you're simply approached by a client and asked to argue a case for him. So you do. The claimants in this matter will have been advised honestly by their lawyers about their chances of success. Bugg Smasher seems to be under the impression that it's the lawyers who decide whether the case goes ahead or not. Of course it's not.
(Bugg Smasher, I concede that things may be a little different in the States, where, as I understand it, "no win, no fee" litigation is more common. That's not the case here - it happens, but relatively rarely and only in certain cases, covered by strict guidelines).
You are a lawyer. A client walks into your office and tells you he wants to bring a claim against an airline because he has suffered DVT. You examine the merits of his claim and evaluate the chances of success. Then you tell the client. At that point, he decides whether he wants to continue or not.
There seems to be a perception out there that this sort of litigation is "driven" by the lawyers - of course it's not. As a lawyer, you're simply approached by a client and asked to argue a case for him. So you do. The claimants in this matter will have been advised honestly by their lawyers about their chances of success. Bugg Smasher seems to be under the impression that it's the lawyers who decide whether the case goes ahead or not. Of course it's not.
(Bugg Smasher, I concede that things may be a little different in the States, where, as I understand it, "no win, no fee" litigation is more common. That's not the case here - it happens, but relatively rarely and only in certain cases, covered by strict guidelines).
quidquid excusatio prandium pro
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: New York
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Many industries on this side of the Atlantic, and aviation ranks high on this list, remain in varying states of strangulation due in part to the burden of trigger-happy litigation. Lawyers, as you say, simply argue the case, they are not required to pass moral judgment.
OJ’s lawyers cleverly and successfully manipulated the legal system to decisive advantage, and even as the general public knew where the guilt lay, they also came to see the practitioners of the profession as highly intelligent but morally deficient, idiot savants if you will, able to play the game supremely well but not knowing why. This is an impression that you rightly object to, and one that is most likely not justified in your country. But it is one that should be corrected. I for one would like to see it done by example, perhaps you might start with this DVT business.
In our society, many serious and perplexing problems are left to fester simply because there are only finite resources with which to address them. Those resources appear to be flowing into the coffers of various law firms around the country at an alarming rate.
OJ’s lawyers cleverly and successfully manipulated the legal system to decisive advantage, and even as the general public knew where the guilt lay, they also came to see the practitioners of the profession as highly intelligent but morally deficient, idiot savants if you will, able to play the game supremely well but not knowing why. This is an impression that you rightly object to, and one that is most likely not justified in your country. But it is one that should be corrected. I for one would like to see it done by example, perhaps you might start with this DVT business.
In our society, many serious and perplexing problems are left to fester simply because there are only finite resources with which to address them. Those resources appear to be flowing into the coffers of various law firms around the country at an alarming rate.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: London
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bugg, I see the point you're making, but you've left out one important consideration. OJ's lawyers were under a (moral) obligation to do everything they could, within the law, to defend him. They would not have been any more moral if they had done their job less well and he had been acquitted; in fact the reverse would have been true.
I agree that the legal system may be exploited in some instances producing results which we, as a society, find distasteful and wrong; the solution is to look at remedying the problems with the system. While the loopholes exist, it is the duty of every lawyer to exploit those to his client's benefit - he is failing in his professional (and I would say moral) duty if he does not.
Just for the record, I very much regret the fact that this is becoming a more litigious society. But the reasons for that are complex - it's not just down to the legal profession.
I agree that the legal system may be exploited in some instances producing results which we, as a society, find distasteful and wrong; the solution is to look at remedying the problems with the system. While the loopholes exist, it is the duty of every lawyer to exploit those to his client's benefit - he is failing in his professional (and I would say moral) duty if he does not.
Just for the record, I very much regret the fact that this is becoming a more litigious society. But the reasons for that are complex - it's not just down to the legal profession.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: london
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was just watching the "watchdog" on the telly. The journalists there show the problem in such a way as if it was some curse cussed upon innocent public by the evil airlines! The choice of words leaves much to be desired as one of them said, I quote: "we don't know how many people are murdered every year..." , the exact words of a w...er who calls himself a journalist!!!
Join Date: May 2000
Location: London
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Neutral, I'll come clean and say that I have absolutely no idea whether the claimants in this case are likely to receive legal aid (but I have a friend that will; I'll get back to you on that!)
You said:
That's odd. So the clients went in to the lawyers not making any link, and went out believing they could get some money out of the airlines! Funny that!
And, of all the thousands of solicitors in the country, how did 150 from all over the country just happen to walk into an office in Watford!!
Of course, what happened was that someone decided to make a claim, and as soon as that received some publicity, a load of others suddenly decided they had the same problem - I still don't see how that is the fault of the lawyers?
I see what you mean about the solicitor's comments - I think I can give you a translation - "We need to make the industry more accountable/address this issue" = "We (ie.my client) are on a crusade here for the public good, so my client is not merely a money-grabbing opportunist who thinks he can make a fast buck out of BA for something that probably isn't their fault".
I work on the side of the profession that defends these sorts of claims, and I am deeply cynical about many such claims. Some people do try to make a fast buck. But what I object to is the unspoken assumption that a lawyer will advise someone he has a good claim, cynically knowing that, whether he does or not, the lawyer will make money out of it anyway. I'm not saying it never happens (I can't, there are villains out there in every profession) - but for you to assume that is like me assuming that every pilot (forgive the stereotype) is a beery letch, more interested in the hosties than the flight plan, who is slowly getting over the heavy night he had last night on the stopover and is only going to land the aircraft safely by the grace of God. Ridiculous? Yes. True in a very small number of cases? Yes. Insulting and wrong if I assume it is true of the whole profession? Extremely.
I didn't mean to hijack this thread and turn it into a discussion about the legal profession, I just wanted to clear up a couple of points.
You said:
That's odd. So the clients went in to the lawyers not making any link, and went out believing they could get some money out of the airlines! Funny that!
And, of all the thousands of solicitors in the country, how did 150 from all over the country just happen to walk into an office in Watford!!
Of course, what happened was that someone decided to make a claim, and as soon as that received some publicity, a load of others suddenly decided they had the same problem - I still don't see how that is the fault of the lawyers?
I see what you mean about the solicitor's comments - I think I can give you a translation - "We need to make the industry more accountable/address this issue" = "We (ie.my client) are on a crusade here for the public good, so my client is not merely a money-grabbing opportunist who thinks he can make a fast buck out of BA for something that probably isn't their fault".
I work on the side of the profession that defends these sorts of claims, and I am deeply cynical about many such claims. Some people do try to make a fast buck. But what I object to is the unspoken assumption that a lawyer will advise someone he has a good claim, cynically knowing that, whether he does or not, the lawyer will make money out of it anyway. I'm not saying it never happens (I can't, there are villains out there in every profession) - but for you to assume that is like me assuming that every pilot (forgive the stereotype) is a beery letch, more interested in the hosties than the flight plan, who is slowly getting over the heavy night he had last night on the stopover and is only going to land the aircraft safely by the grace of God. Ridiculous? Yes. True in a very small number of cases? Yes. Insulting and wrong if I assume it is true of the whole profession? Extremely.
I didn't mean to hijack this thread and turn it into a discussion about the legal profession, I just wanted to clear up a couple of points.