Supreme Court Decision Increases Compensation for Injured Children
A Supreme Court ruling is expected to result in significantly higher damages awarded to children who have suffered injuries due to medical negligence.
Previously, compensation for children was limited to lost earnings — income they would have missed due to an inability to work — calculated only for the years they were expected to live.
However, the court, in a case involving a child who sustained a brain injury at birth in 2015, determined that compensation should reflect the full working life the child would have had if not harmed at birth.
This ruling could have substantial financial implications for the NHS.
Case Background
The child at the centre of this case, born in 2015 at Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, remains unnamed.
During labour, monitoring showed an abnormal heartbeat, but no action was taken. The child was born exhibiting signs of oxygen deprivation, required resuscitation, and subsequent scans confirmed a severe hypoxic brain injury.
The Trust admitted to failures in her care.
The girl suffers from severe cerebral palsy, is unable to walk or talk, has severe visual impairment and epilepsy, and requires continuous 24-hour care.
Previous Compensation Award
In 2023, the High Court awarded a lump sum of £6,866,615 and an additional annual payment of £394,940, linked to inflation.
This compensation was intended to cover her care costs and loss of earnings up to age 29, which was her life expectancy at the time.
Supreme Court Ruling
In a majority verdict, the Supreme Court ruled that compensation must consider her entire loss of earnings and pension for a full working life.
It was agreed by both the Trust and the family's lawyers that, had the girl not been injured, she would have had a normal life expectancy, achieved GCSEs, worked until age 68, and received a pension.
The additional damages will be determined at a later date. Lawyers representing the family estimate this amount to exceed £800,000.
The ruling aligns the legal treatment of children with that of adolescents and adults who have suffered life-shortening injuries, who were already entitled to claim for 'lost years'.
The court stated there was
"no basis in law"for injured children to have their claims treated differently.
