Few rewards in Patel class action plan

Mr Messenger, who was a member of the Liberal National Party until he quit in May, said the state government compensation scheme had short-changed patients. "The special compensation process that the government set up was a complete rort and a failure," Mr Messenger said.

The government had refused to disclose how many patients were paid under the scheme and how much they received, he said. Recipients also were banned from publicly revealing dealings of their compensation, he added.

As an injury compensation lawyer I think it would be very difficult for claimants to recover further money, if they have already been paid under the state’s Patel compensation process.

Patients and families of victims who went through the compensation process earlier presumably all signed discharges. At the time the government agreed not to enforce the civil liability scale (which determines payout amounts for specific injuries).

There were some people who did not claim or whose claims were rejected but they will face limitation issues now. They may also be restricted in what they can seek by the application of the civil liability scale. This scale is a system whereby the values of specific body parts are accorded a dollar value, for compensation purposes.

Injury compensation is about determining a fair sum to compensate for loss of earnings and pain and suffering. The important thing is for former Patel patients and widows to not automatically assume that Patel’s convictions automatically translates to a new payday.

I'm not sure there's too much mileage in the debate. I'm not sure the claims will go anywhere. It would be like having two bites at the cherry. I am also very sceptical of Mr Messenger’s reported claim that a Patel victim’s family received $8,000 in compensation, but $7,000 had gone in solicitor's fees.

I doubt that claim. In Queensland, solicitor’s fees in matters like this are capped at 50 per cent of net recovery, which is damages less refunds and outlays. A solicitor charging $7,000 for an $8,000 settlement would find him or herself in professional “hot water” rather quickly.

In general, talk of more claims against Patel and Queensland Health was inevitable after the former surgeon was found guilty of manslaughter and grievous bodily harm charges following a 14-week trial in Brisbane.

There may be something in the issue of copycat claims but that was always the case. The legal principle of Patel really relates to the criminal conviction where people signed consents to undergo necessary surgery.

There are some political dimensions at play behind the Patel class action idea, but I do not think it is reasonable or fair for someone to falsely raise patients’ hopes that they may be able to secure further compensation.

People who were denied compensation might feel they could join a class action but they would have to prove Patel was to blame, and even then they would be subject to a strict scale of payments in the civil liability legislation.

Changes to Queensland’s compensation laws in 2003 meant even if some patients were eligible to take up a class action, the likely payout may not be worthwhile.

Most of the people injured by Dr Patel were old people or were very ill people and many of those people weren't working because of age or other reasons and were not going to return to work. Therefore, the damages which they could receive may be reasonably modest because they couldn't claim damages for loss of income both in the past and the future. I doubt they would be likely to receive any meaningful damages because they could not claim damages for loss of income both in the past and the future.

The reality of Queensland’s injury compensation laws does not encourage Patel patients and families to launch a renewed push for further compensation.