Having previously discussed Wayne Crewe-Brown’s medico legal consults with Holly and Veronica Luby-Hoey, and mentioned an unscrupulous ambulance chasing London based law firm (hereinafter referred to as ‘UAC LLP’), the following paragraphs are taken from four of WC-B’s medico legal reports - a small selection of his highly (hypocritical) supportive and positive criticism of Optical Express' consent process, that he avoids discussing with claimants at their consultations
1. '
Surgery lists in the co-management clinic chains tend to be very busy and it would be beyond the capabilities of the surgeon, given their caseload, to start the consent process from scratch with every patient.’
'
The informed consent process in this case demonstrates the overlap that exists within a co-management system like Optical Express. Much like the situation that exists within the Cataract Service within the NHS in England, where one non-surgical Ophthalmologist or Nurse may consent a patient for another surgical colleague to undertake the surgery on a completely different day, with that surgeon assuming that the consent process was robust and complete.’
• At all times the operating surgeon is responsible to ensure that the patient has proper and fully informed consent, and whilst it should be considered that the nhs.uk only provides surgery for medical needs, I have NEVER been consented by anyone but the operating surgeon before undergoing surgery of any kind with the NHS!
• The term ‘non-surgical ophthalmologist’ is misleading, as all qualified ophthalmologists are able to perform surgery, whereas an optometrist or nurse is definitely not. And having recently discussed this with an NHS consultant ophthalmologist, he confirmed that he would not allow anyone else to provide consent for his patients, and has never come across a nurse doing this in any of the hospitals where he has worked.
2. 'A
t the time of this case Optical Express employed trained Laser Optometrists to carry out the detailed consent process which was relied upon by the treating Ophthalmic Surgeon. The Professional Standards set by The Royal College of Ophthalmologists, the professional body of Ophthalmologists in the UK at the time, were recommended and not mandated at the time of the index surgery.'
• The The Royal College of Ophthalmologists are NOT regulators, that is the GMC's remit. So quite telling that WCB has not quoted the regulator's rules on consent, which include:
’29. In order to have effective discussions with patients about risk, you must identify the adverse outcomes that may result from the proposed options. This includes the potential outcome of taking no action. Risks can take a number of forms, but will usually be:
• side effects
• complications
• failure of an intervention to achieve the desired aim
www.gmc-uk.org/ethical-guidance/ethical-...ations-and-treatment
3. '
Optical Express, like many refractive eye surgery clinic chains throughout the world, functions as a co-managing organisation…’
• WC-B should only be concerned with the UK and General Medical Council (GMC) guidance - ‘throughout the world’ a diversion, and totally irrelevant.
4. ‘
In my opinion there are no grounds for the allegations of Clinical Negligence by the Defendants in this case. There is ample evidence, as detailed above, that the pre-op assessment, consent process and surgical procedure were carried out to the highest professional standard and in so doing they passed the Bolam Test.’
• Yet, following the Montgomery ruling in 2015, it has been made clear that the Bolam test does not apply in consent cases, as confirmed by the leading medical defence union:
'
For the purposes of consent, the ruling from Montgomery replaces the previous tests founded in Bolam.'
www.themdu.com/guidance-and-advice/guide...and-informed-consent
In 2019 I accompanied two more #MBEF clients to consultations with WC-B, who I’ll refer to as ‘Carol’ and ‘Joe’.
Again, both consultations were recorded.
Carol told WC-B that her complaints included pain, discomfort, starbursts, poor quality of vision, dry eyes, light sensitivity - and 'repeat corneal erosions’.
WC-B ‘forgot’ to mention the erosions in his written report!
He told Carol that the visual disturbances she now suffers are highly unusual after Lasik, claiming that iDesign treatment usually eliminates or diminishes these.
Better I make no comment on this utter nonsense!!
When WC-B confirmed Carol’s medico legal consultation was over, I asked why he hadn’t discussed consent, reminding him that he had done so with Holly in 2016.
Ambushed, he ceded, ‘
Seeing as you brought it up…’
Carol then described her consent process in minutiae, but I’ll only mention a few points here.
WC-B: ‘
Reading was a very big issue in terms of consent. They should have asked you to read with your glasses ON during the consultation…’
Carol replied that she couldn’t as they’d put the drops in before the consult.
WC-B: ’
This should have happened before the drops’!
Carol went on to describe the sales process, and WC-B laughed, '
Where have I heard this before…’
Continuing, she explained how quickly OE offered a discount when she expressed concern at the cost. WC-B groaned and grimaced...
She also told him that there was no video available, as OE claimed she had seen.
But none of this was mentioned in WC-B’s written report, padded out with irrelevancies.
Wayne Crewe-Brown is a bullsh*tter, his reports spun to suit OE’s agenda every time.
And I have his true opinion of OE’s consent process in three of my recordings - from his lips to my phone - in total contradiction to what he writes in his reports!
Which brings me to UAC LLP...
It should be noted that the majority of the hundreds of refractive surgery clients represented by this firm (current and previous) have a conditional fee agreement (CFA) aka 'no win no fee’.
After The Event insurance (ATE) covers the legal costs and expenses involved in litigation, and if a claim is lost at trial then the insurers will pay the costs. Hence 'no win no fee'!
Consequently however, if their solicitor bullies them to accept an insultingly low offer from OE the client has little choice.
Even if they have a strong case, keen to go to trial (lead to believe they will), UAC will refuse, threatening to tell the insurers that they won’t get a better offer in court, which means the insurers withdraw the ATE cover, leaving the client without legal representation, and UAC demanding their (extortionate) fees from the client!
NB: I have numerous copies of UAC LLP emails to support this fact.
This firm knew that I had recordings of WC-B’s consults with Carol and Joe, much of the content contradicting his written reports (complaints made to GMC), but when both clients initially told their respective solicitors, the response was astonishing.
They did not want to hear the recordings, adamantly refusing to challenge WC-B’s reports!
I discussed this with three lawyers from different firms, all who agreed with my opinion that these discredit OE’s medical expert and strengthen the claimant’s case, that they would have immediately contacted the defendants with the recordings, who they’d expect to respond with a decent settlement offer by return.
Instead, UAC LLP did their utmost to discredit me with lies, told Carol that she must drop contact with me, that she was risking her settlement otherwise (a pittance of approx 12k minus 25% success fee to the lawyers)...
But when Joe refused to be similarly bullied, and insisted that they asked me for a copy of the recording, the head of the medical negligence department had no option but to do so, adding, 'Please do not send me the recording for Carol. We do not want to disclose the meeting.’
Oops too late! And I trust they disclosed this to OE?
It is a solicitor's duty to help a client achieve the best possible settlement. But it is my opinion, and that of many of their clients, that this is not happening with UAC LLP, who appear to have their own agenda, with their fees wildly disproportionate to the shockingly low settlements they intimidate clients into accepting.
And they become a little coy when clients have the audacity to ask for an interim summary of their case costs, happily and often voluntarily provided by other firms, as clients are entilted to this even with a CFA.
Please note, that whilst of course all law firms are in it for the money, I want to be very clear that I know some very good solicitors, who actually care about their clients, and do their utmost to fight for the best result. They are not all unscrupulous ambulance chasers!
There is a lot more to tell about UAC LLP, and I may continue later...
In the interim, this link will be of interest to the many unhappy UAC LLP clients who have told me that they intend to make a complaint to the Legal Ombudsman when their claim is finally settled (or dropped by the firm):
www.legalombudsman.org.uk/downloads/docu...ort-final-140103.pdf