Serious hand injuries can instantly alter every aspect of a person’s life. In addition to physical trauma, they often impact confidence, mental health, employment, and independence in less visible ways.

This case demonstrates the importance of early rehabilitation and specialist legal representation following traumatic amputation injuries. The focus extended beyond compensation to ensuring my client received appropriate treatment, support, and rehabilitation from the outset, providing the best opportunity to rebuild his life after a devastating workplace accident.

• The accident: A workplace machinery incident involving a magnetic pillar drill that pulled my client’s dominant left hand into the machine.
• The injuries: Partial amputation of the left thumb, fractures to both bones in the wrist, extensive soft tissue damage, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), and ongoing psychological symptoms.
• The outcome: £350,000 settlement (net of contributory negligence), together with extensive rehabilitation funded throughout the claim.

My client was using a magnetic pillar drill at work when it snagged his anti-cut glove, pulling his dominant left hand into the machine. His employer alleged that he was contributorily negligent, contending that, as an experienced engineer, he should have known that wearing gloves while operating such machinery created a foreseeable risk and made him partly responsible for the accident.

The claimant, however, maintained that it was standard practice for operatives to wear anti-cut gloves when using the pillar drill and that he had never been instructed not to do so.

The consequences of the accident were severe. He suffered a partial amputation of his left thumb, fractures to both bones of his wrist, and a significant laceration to his forearm. What followed was a long and demanding course of treatment and rehabilitation, involving multiple operations to repair fractures, relieve pressure in his hand and forearm, and treat extensive soft tissue damage. Surgeons also performed a groin flap procedure, temporarily attaching his injured hand to his groin to restore its blood supply and maximise the prospect of preserving function.

His recovery was complex. He developed an infection requiring antibiotics, needed additional surgery to reshape the amputation stump after wound breakdown exposed bone, and was still awaiting corrective wrist surgery when the claim settled.

Traumatic accidents rarely result in only physical injuries, and this case was no exception.

My client developed Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, experiencing intrusive flashbacks, disturbed sleep, and overwhelming anxiety about returning to work with machinery. He became reluctant to discuss the accident and increasingly avoided reminders of it.

In addition to PTSD, he experienced periods of low mood, reduced motivation, and difficulty concentrating. These reactions are understandable. In serious injury cases, physical and psychological recovery are closely linked, so should be addressed simultaneously.

Early rehabilitation can have a significant impact on long-term outcomes. In serious injury litigation, our priority is to secure access to rehabilitation as early as possible, rather than waiting for a claim to settle. In this case, under the Rehabilitation Code, we arranged for an experienced case manager to coordinate a comprehensive programme tailored to our client’s individual needs. This included:

• Specialist psychological therapy to help him process the trauma of the accident
• Extensive hand therapy, physiotherapy, and upper limb occupational therapy
• A specialist driving assessment
• A range of aids and equipment to maximise independence during recovery and afterwards

The goal extended beyond physical recovery. It focused on helping him regain confidence, rebuild independence, and adapt to life after such a major injury.

As solicitors, we cannot change what has happened, but we can help ensure clients receive the right support at the right time.

For many, the greatest challenges begin after leaving hospital.

During recovery, my client relied heavily on family and friends for support with daily tasks such as shopping, cooking, cleaning, gardening, and attending appointments. Activities that were once routine became difficult or impossible to manage alone.

He eventually returned to work in the summer of 2025 on a phased basis, initially three mornings per week. However, his long-term employment prospects had changed significantly.

Due to permanent limitations in his dominant hand, he could not return to his previous role or perform regular heavy manual work. He also found cold environments particularly challenging.

Helping clients understand and plan for these long-term consequences is essential to achieving the right outcome.

The claim ultimately settled for £350,000, after a deduction for contributory negligence.

Whilst the financial settlement reflected the seriousness of the injuries and future losses, the most significant outcome was the quantity and quality of rehabilitation we achieved during the claim.

Coordinated support from the case manager, therapists, and clinicians helped my client navigate a difficult period, addressing both physical recovery and psychological trauma whilst restoring as much independence as possible.

Traumatic hand injuries and amputations are never straightforward. These cases often involve multiple surgeries, lengthy rehabilitation, psychological trauma, and significant changes to work and daily life. Understanding the full impact of such injuries and securing early rehabilitation can make a profound difference to a client’s recovery and long-term quality of life.

If you or someone close to you has suffered a traumatic hand injury or amputation at work, early specialist legal advice can help you access the rehabilitation, treatment, and financial support you need.

I’m happy to discuss your circumstances confidentially and at no cost, and to explain how we may be able to help.

For those of us representing people affected by serious injury, access to justice is deeply personal. Each claim represents someone whose life has been disrupted through no fault of their own: an employee unable to work, a family facing uncertainty, or an individual rebuilding after a devastating accident.

This is why I am so proud of RWK Goodman’s relationship with the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL). As a founding corporate sponsor, we have supported APIL from the beginning of this campaign because we believe people injured through negligence deserve specialist legal representation, tailored support, and the opportunity to rebuild their lives.

Over the years, APIL has become more than a professional association. It has been a strong advocate for injured people, challenging misconceptions, shaping public debate, and ensuring victims’ voices are heard.

APIL’s latest report, The Justice Gap: Facing Victims of Negligence, highlights the significant challenges injured people face today. Its findings show that:

• Millions of people harmed through negligence never pursue compensation.
• Personal injury claims have fallen dramatically over the past decade.
• Increasing numbers of injured people are missing out on the financial support, rehabilitation and answers that a claim can provide.

However, statistics hide real stories. Each figure represents a person whose life changed instantly. Without specialist legal advice, many miss out on rehabilitation, treatment, or the financial security that could improve their quality of life and provide support to their families.

Too often, the burden of negligence falls on those least able to bear it, rather than those responsible. This is a reality we see first-hand every day.

I deeply admire APIL’s determination to challenge the myths that have surrounded personal injury law for too long. Public debate is often dominated by rhetoric about a so-called “compensation culture,” which overlooks the real experiences of injured people.

APIL consistently refocuses the conversation on recognising the needs of innocent victims, promoting safer practices, and ensuring those responsible for negligence are held accountable.

Their advocacy benefits everyone. Compensation is not a reward for injury; it aims to restore what has been lost as far as possible, funding rehabilitation, ongoing care, specialist therapies, adapted housing, and replaces lost income when someone cannot work.

Many clients also tell me that pursuing a claim provides answers, accountability, and reassurance that their experience mattered.

APIL’s report also highlights a trend many claimant lawyers have seen in recent years. Changes to claims processes, the impact of fixed recoverable costs, and hurdles for victims of crime, have made accessing specialist legal advice increasingly difficult for those who need it most.

The consequences are far reaching. Delayed legal advice often leads to delayed rehabilitation, prolonged financial uncertainty for families, and missed opportunities to improve safety and prevent future harm.

There is also a wider societal cost, with increased pressure on public services, including the NHS. APIL’s strength lies in demonstrating these broader consequences through research and evidence, ensuring policy discussions remain grounded in the real experiences of injured people.

Every day, I see the profound difference specialist legal representation makes. Supporting someone through a difficult time involves more than securing compensation. It means listening, explaining legal processes, arranging early rehabilitation, working closely with medical experts, and helping families navigate uncertainty with confidence.

It is a privilege to do this work, and specialist claimant lawyers across the country approach it with compassion, expertise, and determination. APIL has always upheld these values. Its commitment to education, ethical practice, and high professional standards has strengthened our profession and created a community united by the goal of improving the lives of people injured through negligence.

At RWK Goodman, our support for APIL reflects our core values. We believe specialist legal expertise changes lives and that everyone deserves access to justice, regardless of financial circumstances. Above all, every injured person deserves to be heard.

As the legal landscape evolves, organisations like APIL are more important than ever. Through research, campaigning, and advocacy, they ensure the voices of injured people are heard where and when it matters most.

We are proud to stand alongside APIL, as we have since its inception. Together, we will continue to champion access to justice, support those harmed through negligence, and ensure every injured person can access the expert representation and support they deserve.

Every new review into maternity care raises the same question for families who’ve already lived through avoidable harm: Will anything actually change this time? After so many inquiries, it’s understandable if some struggle to believe another report will make a difference.

Baroness Valerie Amos’ report – Independent Investigation into Maternity and Neonatal Services in England – doesn’t simply identify individual failings, it argues that the system itself is no longer consistently delivering the standard of care families should be able to expect. Although most births are safe, the report finds the system cannot consistently provide safe, compassionate care for every family, which should concern everyone.

Coming just days after the Ockenden Review into Nottingham’s maternity services, the Amos report reminds us that these failures are not isolated to one hospital or region—they are systemic. In my recent article on the Ockenden report, I said that another document gathering dust on a shelf would be meaningless without action. Sadly, that’s a frustration I hear echoed by many of the families I represent. After one inquiry follows another, they understandably ask why similar failings continue to happen. Unfortunately, this latest report reaches a remarkably similar conclusion: too many previous recommendations have lost momentum or been ignored entirely.

Baroness Amos concludes that England’s maternity and neonatal system can no longer consistently deliver safe, high-quality and compassionate care, and calls for urgent, comprehensive reform.

Baroness Amos’ review goes beyond individual errors to examine why the healthcare system is slow to learn, identifying a fragmented, complex system where staff face constant pressure and culture undermines patient safety.

Good maternity care isn’t only about clinical skill—it’s also about recognising that women know their own bodies. Again and again, I meet mothers who tell me, “I knew something wasn’t right.” The tragedy is that they were often proved right only after opportunities to intervene had already been lost. Listening isn’t simply compassionate care—it can change outcomes.

Some of the most troubling findings concern inequalities that have been discussed for years but still persist. Black women continue to face a far greater risk of dying during pregnancy or childbirth than white women, while Asian women also experience disproportionately poorer outcomes.

These are not simply uncomfortable statistics, they represent mothers whose concerns may have been overlooked, families whose outcomes might have been different, and inequalities that have persisted for far too long. Treating them as patient safety issues, rather than unavoidable facts, is long overdue.

None of this should be read as criticism of the dedicated professionals working in maternity services. Most midwives, obstetricians and neonatal staff are doing extraordinary work in extremely difficult circumstances. But goodwill alone cannot compensate for chronic staffing shortages, ageing facilities and growing clinical complexity.

Over the years, I’ve spoken to many clinicians who are deeply committed to providing excellent care but feel they’re working in a system that makes that increasingly difficult. That doesn’t excuse avoidable harm, but it helps explain why sustained investment is essential.

One feature I see repeatedly in serious cases is information falling through the gaps between different teams. Pregnancy isn’t one continuous service—it’s a series of handovers. When communication between teams breaks down, families can pay a devastating price.

The report’s main proposal is to establish a statutory Maternity and Neonatal Commissioner to drive improvements and enforce accountability. This role must have real enforcement powers to be effective, not just add a layer of bureaucracy.

The report recommends families have an automatic right to request an independent investigation if dissatisfied with a hospital trust’s internal review. Families often tell me they feel like observers rather than participants in investigations into what happened to them, and if confidence is to be rebuilt, those voices need to be part of the process from the beginning.

The report critiques the clinical negligence process and urges the government to consider less adversarial compensation approaches. Whilst this discussion is important, the rights of injured patients must be protected. In my experience, very few families begin by wanting compensation. Most simply want someone to explain what happened, acknowledge mistakes where they’ve been made and reassure them lessons will be learned. Legal action often follows only when those conversations never happen.

Compensation for catastrophic birth injuries is essential to fund lifelong care, therapies, and adapted accommodation. Earlier openness and support would be welcome, but the safety net for affected children must remain intact.

If you are currently pregnant, most births in England and Wales are safe and positive. The report aims to drive improvement, not cause alarm.

The impact of a serious birth injury doesn’t end when a family leaves hospital. For many of the parents I work with, it’s the beginning of years of appointments, therapy, uncertainty and adapting to a very different future than the one they expected.

No family wants to find themselves needing legal advice after the birth of a child. But where avoidable mistakes have caused lifelong injury, getting specialist advice early can make a significant difference to the support available for the future.

Our guide to Birth injury claims explains the process.

One thing I’ve learned from working with families over many years is that legal outcomes are only one part of recovery. Speaking to other parents who truly understand what you’ve experienced can be just as valuable. We support online spaces such as the Little Champions Instagram community for families of children with birth injuries, and What About Mums? for maternal injuries and mental health. Connecting with others can make a significant difference in recovery.

Reports do not make maternity care safer—people do. The Amos review will only matter if its recommendations lead to different decisions on hospital wards, in boardrooms and across government. Families have heard promises before, and many have every reason to be sceptical. I hope this report proves to be different. For the sake of future parents and babies, it must.

As the Royal College of Nursing recently emphasised, this cannot become another missed opportunity. For mothers and babies nationwide, the system must change for good.

The new case departs from the approach established in the Court’s 2014 decision in P v Cheshire West and Chester Council.

In that case, the court introduced what became known as the “acid test” for determining whether someone was deprived of their liberty under Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The so-called “acid test” meant that someone could be considered deprived of their liberty if they were under continuous supervision and control and could not leave.

But the defining feature of the 2014 ruling was that it did not matter whether the person appeared content with their care arrangements or whether the placement was beneficial. If the acid test was met and the person lacked capacity to consent, legal safeguards were required.

The decision dramatically expanded the number of people considered deprived of their liberty, leading to a sharp increase in applications under the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) system.

Discover more about mental capacity and DoLS for care organisations >

The case arose after Northern Ireland’s Health Minister sought to revise guidance governing deprivation of liberty.

The proposed changes would allow some people aged 16 and over who lack decision-making capacity to nevertheless give valid consent to their care arrangements through the expression of their wishes and feelings.

The Attorney General for Northern Ireland referred the issue to the Supreme Court to determine whether such changes would be compatible with Article 5.

The key legal question was whether a person who lacks mental capacity to make decisions about their care can still provide valid consent, for human rights purposes, by expressing contentment in some manner with their living arrangements.

In a unanimous judgment, a seven-justice panel concluded that the majority decision in Cheshire West was wrong and should be overruled.

The court held that the European Court of Human Rights has never adopted the acid test used in Cheshire West. Instead, Strasbourg case law requires a “multifactorial” assessment that considers the person’s overall situation.

Similarly, the Supreme Court’s new stance requires a “multifactorial” assessment, whereby judges and care providers must now weigh a range of factors:

• the nature and extent of restrictions placed upon them;
• the setting in which they live;
• the purpose of the arrangements;
• their individual circumstances; and
• whether they express wishes or feelings indicating acceptance or objection.

But the real surprise was the court’s finding that lacking mental capacity does not automatically mean someone cannot give consent under Article 5.

The justices held that some individuals may have sufficient awareness of their living arrangements to communicate whether they are happy or unhappy with them, even though they lack legal capacity to make decisions about their care.

The immediate effect is that fewer people are likely to be regarded as deprived of their liberty solely because they are subject to continuous supervision and control and are not free to leave. As a result, some people who would previously have required formal deprivation of liberty authorisation may no longer fall within Article 5 protections.

Supporters of the judgment argue that it brings domestic law back into line with European human rights law and avoids treating every restrictive care arrangement as a deprivation of liberty. However, disability rights organisations have expressed deep concern about the practical consequences, with the National Autistic Society, Mencap and Mind described the ruling as “the biggest rollback of disability rights in a generation”, warning that fewer people may benefit from independent oversight, advocacy and access to legal remedies.

The judgment arrives at a time of severe backlogs in the existing DoLS system. NHS Digital data reveals that out of nearly 365,000 applications made during 2024-25, nearly 119,000 remained outstanding at year end. Worse still, only about one in five was actually processed within the legally mandated 21-day window.

The government’s longstanding plan to replace DoLS with Liberty Protection Safeguards (LPS) has yet to be implemented. The Supreme Court’s ruling is therefore likely to significantly influence future discussions about how legal safeguards for vulnerable adults should operate.

For now, health and social care providers are left with the massive task of auditing their current caseloads to see who still falls under the protection of the law—and who now falls short.