Health and cybercrime

Cybercrime is the fastest growing criminal activity in the world, and attacks on healthcare providers are becoming more prevalent. The healthcare industry is particularly vulnerable to hacking, and stolen medical records can fetch up to ten times the price of stolen credit card numbers on the black market.

We recently hosted a roundtable event, in association with Insurance Post, to debate the issue of cybercrime within the healthcare sector. The roundtable discussed the scale of the threat and what the healthcare industry can do to try and prevent it. We have since put together a short video to highlight the risks to the healthcare sector, featuring partners Christopher Malla and Jillian Raw, and head of public affairs, Deborah Newberry.

Discount rate review: decision delayed until February 2017

The Lord Chancellor has confirmed that plans to publish the results on whether to change the discount rate applied to personal injury claims will not go ahead on 31 January 2017. The announcement is expected in February. The decision follows the legal action taken by the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers challenging the delay in providing a conclusion to the review.  Kennedys has urged the government to ensure its decision reflects its own research that personal injury claimants do not simply put their damages into low-risk investments. The earlier research also recognised that even a small reduction in the rate would have a significant impact on public bodies and insurers. Meanwhile, the Association of British Insurers has lost its appeal to bring a legal challenge to the Lord Chancellor’s decision to review the rate. 

Related item: Kennedys urges government to reflect reality of investment in discount rate decision 

In this issue:

• Market insights
• Motor brief latest decisions January 2017
• Legal innovations and the insurance industry
• Fixed costs: two un-appealing decisions for defendants
• EU motor law: the impact of Brexit for the UK
  

 The Supreme Court held that:

• The bus company had not failed to comply with its positive duty towards disabled people (including wheelchair users).
• The law cannot enforce basic decency and courtesy. The bus company cannot create such an obligation on passengers by the terms of their published wheelchair policy.
• The judge at first instance had not required a policy of forcible ejection. Requiring the other passenger(s) to get off the bus would go too far and could lead to confrontation and violence.
• The company could not be criticised for not making the notice more peremptory.

However, where a driver concluded that a refusal of a request to vacate was unreasonable, it was justifiable to require some further step by the driver. This included stopping the bus for a few minutes with a view to “pressurising or shaming” the recalcitrant non-wheelchair user(s) to move.