Key facts
- Victims and relatives are struggling to obtain decades-old medical records to prove eligibility for compensation.
- The Infected Blood Compensation Authority (IBCA) is criticized for its stringent approach to claims.
- Campaigners state that victims are asked to prove basic facts, such as cohabitation with deceased relatives.
- The Haemophilia Society reports that only 15% of projected compensation claims have been processed since the IBCA's inception.
- The Haemophilia Society advocates for the burden of proof to be shifted from applicants to the state.
Victims of the infected blood scandal and their relatives are facing significant difficulties in claiming compensation due to stringent bureaucratic demands, according to campaigners and legal representatives. Many are being asked to provide decades-old medical records and proof of basic facts, such as cohabitation, which are often unobtainable.
Suzanne Morgan recounted the death of her mother 35 years ago from Hepatitis C, contracted through a blood transfusion. Despite the long-standing nature of her family's tragedy, Morgan is now struggling to gather the necessary documentation to qualify for the Infected Blood Compensation Authority (IBCA) payment scheme. Campaigners like Rachel Halford, chief executive of the Hepatitis C Trust, have voiced outrage, calling the process an "intolerable burden" on individuals who have already suffered immense injustice. Some claimants have reportedly had to produce old school records, tenancy agreements, utility bills, or family photos to prove their eligibility.
Research from the Haemophilia Society indicates that only 15% of projected compensation claims have been processed in the two years since the IBCA's inception. Campaigners have expressed concern and anger over the lack of progress and the "unreasonable and sometimes impossible bureaucratic demands" made by the IBCA. The Haemophilia Society is advocating for a regulatory change to shift the burden of evidence from applicants to the state, arguing that all applicants with a bleeding disorder should be presumed eligible unless proven otherwise. This would alleviate pressure on haemophilia treatment centres, whose staff are reportedly working unpaid hours to sift through medical notes for evidence.
Lawyer Charlotte Evans noted that the IBCA's requirement for proof beyond reasonable doubt deviates from the "balance of probabilities" standard typically used in medical negligence claims. She suggested that a disconnect may exist due to inadequate guidance or training for claims assessors. Lynne Kelly, chair of Haemophilia Wales, described a "tick box" approach from claims managers and believes the scheme, controlled by the Cabinet Office, is designed to minimize payouts.
Victims like Zena Whittaker and Luke O'Shea shared their ongoing struggles. Whittaker's son Andrew, a haemophiliac, likely contracted Hepatitis C but his medical records were destroyed. O'Shea, infected as a child, faces a significant shortfall in compensation because he did not undergo a liver biopsy, which was deemed too risky for haemophiliacs. A spokesperson for the IBCA stated that missing or destroyed records would not prevent claims and that all available evidence, including witness testimony, would be considered. A government spokesperson assured that changes have been made to the scheme through engagement with the community to ensure victims receive deserved compensation.