PIP Implants, Can I Claim Back On My Credit Card?

greenface

great waffle and well put thanks . The signing of a disclosure could be both problematic and in their favour will read something like . "bag may break and liquid may leak" but prob wont say "Not the best bags on the market could have bought better and harmful liquid will leak ".

andy.m_2

Tricky, like the selling of endowments or interest only loans...

Surgeon has a duty to inform client of risks and does so, client thinks they sign this and have the perfect (in their eyes) bust.

Not saying this is the case but it is very easy to overlook and fail to concentrate prior to the ink drying and the promise of all that self doubt and depression being instantaneously lifted.

This does not apply in the name of genuine reconstructive surgery, or to call girls and table dancers who probably get to write this off as a taxable expense?

upsydaisy12345

Errata wrote: »

I think this firm of solicitors may be setting up a class action hughjames It may be worth talking to them if anyone wants to take an action themselves, and IME even though they're based in Wales they're excellent at distance work.

this is a very good solicitor one of the best im with the same solicitor, they are applying for a GLO (group litigation order) at the end of this month & already have about 700 ladies signed up

ILW

upsydaisy12345 wrote: »

this is a very good solicitor one of the best im with the same solicitor, they are applying for a GLO (group litigation order) at the end of this month & already have about 700 ladies signed up

Who are they planning on suing?

Edmund0Dantes

My experiance of this is that they are ambulance chasers.

LGG_2

It appears that once in the body the silicone does not behave like the silicone usually found in implants. (which would stay in the breast area and not migrate around the body)

the leakages from dow and other silicone implant have been found all over womens bodies. places such as ankles (cant get much futher away from the breast than that!) it seems to be a common lie amongst surgeons to say the standard implant if they leak dont go anywhere becasue of the scare tissue.thats the B.S they told my mother. seems as the PIP implants just act like several other different silicone implants that have been used over the years

It does worry me. I have a substance that hasn't been tested or approved to be inside the human body, so it would be rather silly not to be a bit worried.

tbh i doubt you are at any more risk than than when you had your previous implants. if they rupture you will end up with problems and if they dont you prob wont. previous silcone implants were tested and approved and look at the damage they did.

what ever happens i hope things work out for the best for you.

chattychappy

greenface wrote: »

great waffle and well put thanks . The signing of a disclosure could be both problematic and in their favour will read something like . "bag may break and liquid may leak" but prob wont say "Not the best bags on the market could have bought better and harmful liquid will leak ".

Bear in mind that clauses that unfairly or unreasonably attempt to limit or eliminate liability for things going wrong rarely succeed. Lawyers sometimes draft them in order hoodwink unadvised consumers into thinking they haven't got a case.

Errata

Edmund0Dantes wrote: »

My experiance of this is that they are ambulance chasers.

Who are? And what experience?

NFH

2sides2everystory wrote: »

The limitation starts ticking from the point at which damage is first realised, does it not YB?

No, the Limitation Act 1980 limits liability to six years from cause, not from discovery, whether under Section 5 (simple contract) or Section 2 (tort). In either case, it states that an action "shall not be brought after the expiration of six years from the date on which the cause of action accrued".

2sides2everystory

NFH wrote: »

No, the Limitation Act 1980 limits liability to six years from cause, not from discovery, whether under Section 5 (simple contract) or Section 2 (tort). In either case, it states that an action "shall not be brought after the expiration of six years from the date on which the cause of action accrued".

But chattychappy, whilst not making any judgement on it, earlier in the thread was quite rightly alluding to 3 year personal injury limitations commencing upon discovery. Have you considered that NFH ?