Lawyers are taking landmark legal action against the NHS in Scotland, claiming that hospitals breached health and safety regulations in allowing the MRSA superbug to develop in wards.
They say that MRSA is a substance, not just an infection, and that hospitals which report the infection are in breach of the legislation on control of substances harmful to health.
Cameron Fyfe, of Ross Harper solicitors, is waiting for a final hearing in the test case of Elizabeth Miller, who contracted the bug while in hospital for heart surgery. If successful, the case could open the floodgates for 156 victims of MRSA who are each represented by Mr Fyfe.
"This claim is in addition to the claim of medical negligence," he said. "The regulation says that a hospital must be clean and there must not be any substances which could endanger the health of staff or patients.
"In a case which has taken place in England, that has been interpreted as including microbiological things such as MRSA. Even although it is microscopic, it is still a substance and hospitals have a duty to ensure nothing dangerous can be found in wards."
It follows news that the Scottish NHS has been forced to pay out almost £40m in compensation over the past five years. The number of legal claims alleging clinical negligence has also soared, with 465 actions launched in 2006, compared to 400 in 2005.
A Scottish Executive spokeswoman said the amount of compensation paid by NHS Scotland was "proportionately far lower" than the rest of the UK.
She added: "Tackling healthcare-associated infections, such as MRSA, is a priority for the executive and NHS Scotland. The executive has provided £15m to drive this work forward."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article