Hello and thank you for your question. I will be very pleased to assist you. I'm a practising lawyer in England with over 10 years experience.
Are you able to kindly provide the context please?
Does this relate to UK law or another jurisdiction?
Thank you. In your original question, you refer to the word "eventuality". Are you able to provide me with the exact wording that was used which contained that word please so I can comment on that precisely?
Don't worry. Thank you for that.
from what I understand, you are pursuing a clinical negligence claim against the NHS and under a claim you are entitled to claim for general damages for pain and suffering, special damages for losses he you suffer as a result of the negligence and finally future losses and expenses such as loss of earnings or future care needs.
The NHS is not obliged to pay for costs and expenses they can show did not occur as a result of their negligence. So if they can show that you would have incurred certain expenses or would have suffered certain pain or injury regardless of their negligence they can seek to avoid payment for those issues or items.
So what they appear to be trying to say is that even had they not made mistake(s) they admit, you would have suffered certain issues or losses you are seeking to claim for anyway so they should not have to pay for these issues or items.
This is a common defence. It is up to your lawyer to seek to resist this defence and other attempts to limit the claim and seek to claim as much as he can for you.
Essentially if you can show that you have suffered pain or suffered a loss or expense as a result of the NHSs negligence and it is not clear that you would have suffered that pain or loss but for their negligence, you should be able to claim for that issue or expense.
If the NHS attempt to claim that you would have suffered certain injury or loss anyway even if they had not been negligent, it is for them to prove this on the balance of probability and your solicitor's job is to help you to resist such claims by the NHS
That appears to be what they are trying to say. Do not be discouraged by this. It is a common defence the NHS will employ. Remember it is the job of the NHS representative to achieve the cheapest settlement he can. Conversely it is your lawyers job to achieve the opposite.
Regarding the age of 70 calculations for future losses are calculated using actuary tables which aim to predict life expectancy. If you are 68 and in otherwise generally good health your lawyer will not doubt be questioning the proposal to use an age of 70 to calculate future losses to.
If they have admitted negligence you have already won. The only remaining question is the amount of compensation payable.
Your barrister is very likely to specialise exclusively in clinical negligence claims and therefore is likely to know his stuff inside out and will be able to give you a good indication if you ask him at your next appointment or a range of compensation he would expect you to be able to reasonably achieve
There is no prescribed upper limit but there are tables of general damages which you barrister will have ready access to which show ranges of damages awared for different types of injury.
This is designed to give some degree of consistency to awards of damages.
There is an approximate guide you can find here which you might find useful though it should not be taken to literally and is far from comprehensive and you should rely on your barristers advice rather than the below:
Have I been able to help you with all your questions on the above?
Is there anything above I can clarify for you any further or does the above answer all your questions for now?
If you have no further questions for now I should be very grateful if you would kindly take a moment to rate my service to you today. Your feedback is important to me. If there is anything else I can help with please reply back to me though