Thanks and I will take that as a "yes".

Not sure how many I will be instructed in as yet but we have a lawyers
Steering Committee meeting next month.

I have just received a copy of last Friday's judgement. It runs to 497 pages!

As the Government have announced they wish to settle all other "valid" claims
in the same manner as did Judge Turner, the most important section to read
is that dealing with why he dismissed the two  cases that lost.It is all
about causation of damage, ie having to estabish that the damage would not
have been caused had it not been for the negligent level of dust. It is for
this reason that detailed consideration of the whole medical history is
going to be so important.

It is not clear as yet how many cases will come forward but estimates show a
significant number. The lawyers Steering Committee, on which I sit,  is
meeting next month and I will raise how cases are disrtibuted amongst the
law firms. Unfortunatley since I made my original posting, the Union firm
has been splattering their helpline number in newspaper articles and
adverts all over the place and so will be sweeping up large numbers of new
clients which I suspect they will want to retain themselves. However, there
should be enough  for  everyone (some 100,000 of potential cases were
estimated-I have 20 so far!)

The main worry for miners are the unqualified claims handlers and I attach a
Press Release I have issued to local papers on this point. 

It seems to me that GPs are the trusted first line of advice for ex-miners
and I think GPs could increase their negotiating position with lawyers by
offering to inform patients of the right to claim and referring patients to
solicitors with whom they have agreed copy record arrangements etc. In
return referring GPs could be instructed to review records in cases of
other GPs. In view of the fact that this is not a speculative claim, but
rather the Government have made it clear that they will want to pay
compensation to every ex-miner proven to be damaged by the dust, it would
seem there is nothing unethical in such an arrangment. On the contrary it 
could be said it is in the patient's interest inensuring he is steered
clear from claims handlers or lawyers with no experience of the complex
medico-legal issues in the case. I would, however, very much  welcome your
comments.


Graham Ross

COAL DUST VERDICT
WARNING AGAINST CLAIMS HANDLERS


This note follows last Friday's High Court judgement awarding damages in six
test cases by former coal miners against British Coal for emphysema and
similar conditions caused by coal dust ,and the Minister's announcement
that the Government now wishes to settle claims for all other ex-miners
similarly injured. It is estimated that there may be upwards  of 100,000
former miners with potential claims.

Graham Ross, solicitor and member  of the eight man Steering Committee of
lawyers who ran the test case and will be advising and screening  other
claims, has issued a warning against non-solicitor advisory services who
may seek to obtain instuctions from other former miners.

Graham Ross says "There has been an unwelcome development in recent years of
firms of "claims handlers" who are not solicitors, but offer to undertake
work on a contingency fee basis. These firms are not qualified to take
cases to trial."

"It is anticipated that firms of legally unqualified claims handlers, who
have been recently seeking instructions in occupational illness claims, 
will  promote themselves to former miners. It should be understood that
claims of this nature, even though liability has been accepted, are still
complex to handle. It will be necessary to undertake a thorough and
detailed medico-legal investigation in order to establish  that the illness
has been caused or materially contributed to, not just by coal dust, but by
legally relevant dust. The judge accepted that miners would have accepted
exposure to some dust in the mines and thus can only claim for damage that,
in the context of constitutional factors relevant to their own condition
and background, can be proven to have ben caused by the "negligent" dust
above acceptable levels. If, on account of a miners previous health history
and level of smoking and other factors, he would have sufferred the
illness, even had he been exposed only to acceptable levels of dust, then
he has no case."

"It is expected that Government lawyers will want to be satisfied that only
truly valid cases of causation of damage receive compensation. For this
reason, it is vital that miners are represented only by lawyers, and those
who have good  experience in this area of work."

Under current Government plans, applications for Legal Aid will not be
accepted after April, so that it is important for anyone who wishes to
claim to do so now.

Graham Ross runs a national network of solicitors firms, ALeRT,and  has set
up a screening service for all new claims to include referral to a member
firm local to the client. To register with ALeRT, phone the helpline on
0151 236 1949.





*** Sent using unregistered version of MailCat for Win32
Graham Ross
Solicitor
Ross & Co
Liverpool, UK
+44 (0)151 284 8585
+44 (0)151 236 6035-fax
ALeRT:-http://www.alertuk.com

*** Sent using unregistered version of MailCat for Win32
Graham Ross
Solicitor
Ross & Co
Liverpool, UK
+44 (0)151 284 8585
+44 (0)151 236 6035-fax
ALeRT:-http://www.alertuk.com




%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%