256k for PTSD

seamus

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Except that pesky freedom of opinion we currently enjoy.

That's nothing to do with the basis. He's entitled to his baseless opinion all he wants. That doesn't mean anyone has to accept it or respect it. And that won't stop me pointing out that an expressed opinion without a base is just an ignorant rant.

PlaneSpeeking

seamus wrote: »

That's nothing to do with the basis. He's entitled to his baseless opinion all he wants. That doesn't mean anyone has to accept it or respect it.

And similarly her cheerleaders on here who also have no appropriate medical training and or access are also similarly free to ignore - at least from the side with healthy scepticism, common sense and a hatred of spongers.

seamus

There's a judgement right there which you can read.

You can't make claims about "common sense" and "spongers" while simultaneously ignoring the facts in front of you. That's not skepticism, that's cynicism.

PlaneSpeeking

seamus wrote: »

There's a judgement right there which you can read.

You can't make claims about "common sense" and "spongers" while simultaneously ignoring the facts in front of you. That's not skepticism, that's cynicism.

Ignoring the facts - like the myriad of mentions of "following

---

tests, nothing was found" ?

Nermal

seamus wrote: »

Unless you are a professional who has reviewed the notes in full and sat in on the arguments, then you have no basis on which to disagree with the award.

The professional opinions have no basis other than the patient's own reporting of her symptoms. They should be given no value as evidence.

She may be 'faking it', she may not, the point is there is no way to tell.

PlaneSpeeking

Nermal wrote: »

The professional opinions have no basis other than the patient's own reporting of her symptoms. They should be given no value as evidence.

She may be 'faking it', she may not, the point is there is no way to tell.

Exactly. I think a good point was made earlier - how was the 45% fault determined ? She walked out in front of a car - end of story!

McCrack

Nermal wrote: »

The professional opinions have no basis other than the patient's own reporting of her symptoms. They should be given no value as evidence.

She may be 'faking it', she may not, the point is there is no way to tell.

Expert/professional opinions from doctors and Consultants should be given no value as evidence????

What an incredibly dumb thing to say

Nermal

McCrack wrote: »

Expert/professional opinions from doctors and Consultants should be given no value as evidence????

What an incredibly dumb thing to say

Sigh.

When they're based on nothing more than self-reported symptoms, yes.

Obviously, an expert opinion on interpreting actual evidence - say, a scan that shows a torn ligament - is valuable.

PlaneSpeeking

McCrack wrote: »

Expert/professional opinions from doctors and Consultants should be given no value as evidence????

What an incredibly dumb thing to say

It's really not though.

There are many conditions that rely solely on the word and affect of the patient - whiplash for example being just one.

You read up enough on the subject and can certainly get the diagnosis you want.

And that has come from a doctor who now refuses to get involved with any kind of legal cases, too easy even for a great doctor to be fooled.

I myself had a bad fall on holiday, the fault of the hotel. I sued and got back the value of the holiday as the injury ruined all bar one day of the trip.

The number of people giving advice on what else to claim for - and how to achieve it/what to say etc was sickening. People I thought were decent, no better than common thieves.

PlaneSpeeking

Nermal wrote: »

Sigh.

When they're based on nothing more than self-reported symptoms, yes.

Obviously, an expert opinion on interpreting actual evidence - say, a scan that shows a torn ligament - is valuable.

Reading that court doc - apart from the tear in the ACL - every "symptom" was checked and nothing concrete found.

McCrack

Nermal wrote: »

Sigh.

When they're based on nothing more than self-reported symptoms, yes.

Obviously, an expert opinion on interpreting actual evidence - say, a scan that shows a torn ligament - is valuable.

So because PTSD is not tangible as in you cannot undergo diagnostic examination (eg MRI) you're suggesting a Consultant Psychiatrist should not be allowed assist the Court with expert evidence?

If that is so how do you propose the evidence be given and cross-examined upon?

Nermal

McCrack wrote: »

So because PTSD is not tangible as in you cannot undergo diagnostic examination (eg MRI) you're suggesting a Consultant Psychiatrist should not be allowed assist the Court with expert evidence?

If that is so how do you propose the evidence be given and cross-examined upon?

Who am I to place restrictions on courtroom blather? Testify and cross-examine to your heart's content. But when the quantum is being decided, only real injuries should count.

McCrack

Nermal wrote: »

Who am I to place restrictions on courtroom blather? Testify and cross-examine to your heart's content. But when the quantum is being decided, only real injuries should count.

Well yes "only real injuries should count" - I dont think anyone is disagreeing there

However you appear to be contradicting yourself

Earlier you said "professional opinions have no basis other than the patient's own reporting of her symptoms. They should be given no value as evidence"

How then can a Court come to a proper decision on quantum (value the injury) in the absence of any professional opinion from doctors/Consultants?

PlaneSpeeking

McCrack wrote: »

Well yes "only real injuries should count" - I dont think anyone is disagreeing there

However your appear to be contradicting yourself

Earlier you said "professional opinions have no basis other than the patient's own reporting of her symptoms. They should be given no value as evidence"

How then can a Court come to a proper decision on quantum (value the injury) in the absence of any professional opinion from doctors/Consultants?

If the ONLY note is an opinion of the doctor then yes, definitely take it with a handful of salt.

KevinCavan

What people fail to see in this case is that the Asian lady sued for a whole host of ailments besides PTSD, it seems that the media just latched onto the PTSD element. She had fibromyalgia and other physical damage also.

Cee-Jay-Cee

seamus wrote: »

Traffic lights mean "proceed if it is safe to do so", not "you can go no matter what". A pedestrian actively crossing the road still has right of way over a turning vehicle regardless of the light sequence.

Her awarded was reduced by 45% because she crossed at the red light.

You can thank the stupid inattentive driver who crashed into a slow-moving visible hazard on a city centre street for any rise in insurance premiums.

If you are driving along at 20-30kmph and less than 1m from the kerb/footpath (as would be normal on most streets) and someone on the footpath decides to step into your path as you approach then you are not going to be able to get stopped in adequate time. If everyone were to drive about anticipating idiots stepping out in front of them then traffic would grind to a halt and no one would ever get anywhere.

If the light was green, then she was fully in the wrong and deserved nothing!

I hope the insurance company appeal the ruling and win, costs should be awarded against her. She has some neck on her taking a claim for something that was 100% her fault.

seamus

Nermal wrote: »

The professional opinions have no basis other than the patient's own reporting of her symptoms. They should be given no value as evidence.

She may be 'faking it', she may not, the point is there is no way to tell.

I see. There you have it. Mental health issues should be disregarded because there's just no way to tell. We should probably start shutting down psychology departments and the rest, sure isn't all just a load of blather and opinion talking about people's self-reported symptoms. It has no value.

:rolleyes:

FWIW, your commentary is defamatory, I'd be careful about how enthusiastic you get in online discussions. You never know who's watching.

Cee-Jay-Cee wrote: »

If everyone were to drive about anticipating idiots stepping out in front of them then traffic would grind to a halt and no one would ever get anywhere.

https://twitter.com/SimpsonsQOTD/status/604296838762614784

I hope the insurance company appeal the ruling and win, costs should be awarded against her.

They won't. The insurance company voluntarily agreed that the blame was to be split 45:55.

irishproduce

Business Cat wrote: »

PTSD is even more difficult to prove than whiplash.

It is also a common enough symptom tacked onto whiplash claims.

I'm a nervous passenger now your honour.

I wake up with night terrors now your honour.

As its virtually impossible to disprove the law will invariably side with the injured party and payment will be made.

Based on the limited details available here it does seem like the claimant suffered psychological damage following the accident but rather than paying her a big fat cheque, I'd be much more in favour of having insurers fully covering the cost of all medical needs, getting the best psychologists money can buy and getting her intensive therapy.

Instead, due to her own recklessness she walks away with a quarter of a million and a precedent has now been set.

Joke shop judiciary strikes again.

That is fine, assuming all that is expected in law is that she is righted in terms of restoring her to normal condition.
What is the inconvenience and emotional stress of it, is the claimant entitled to financial compensation in lieu of said inconvenience and stress

The Bishop Basher

KevinCavan wrote: »

What people fail to see in this case is that the Asian lady sued for a whole host of ailments besides PTSD, it seems that the media just latched onto the PTSD element. She had fibromyalgia and other physical damage also.

Yeah, cause she ignored a red light and walked out in front of a car. What exactly did she think was going to happen ?

It’s a quite remarkable that a lady with so many pschycological injuries up to and including PTSD was able to defend herself in a case of this nature.

Had she previous training or is it the case that any gob****e can do it ?

Seems like walking out in front of a moving car and subsequently dispensing with any legal professionals to help you is an extremely profitable business.

monkeybutter

seamus wrote: »

I see. There you have it. Mental health issues should be disregarded because there's just no way to tell. We should probably start shutting down psychology departments and the rest, sure isn't all just a load of blather and opinion talking about people's self-reported symptoms. It has no value.

:rolleyes:

FWIW, your commentary is defamatory, I'd be careful about how enthusiastic you get in online discussions. You never know who's watching.



https://twitter.com/SimpsonsQOTD/status/604296838762614784
They won't. The insurance company voluntarily agreed that the blame was to be split 45:55.

Nerds is who is watching, they are the only ones with the time and inclination to be arguing the toss online during the working day

The Bishop Basher

McCrack wrote: »

It seems that apportionment of liability was agreed between the sides without the necessity for a Judge to decide

No judge required. No lawyer required.

Doesn’t say much for the legal profession does it ?

The Bishop Basher

McCrack wrote: »

I always get a laugh at these threads because I know for certain every bitter cnut on them would be straight down to a solicitor if they were injured and it was someone elses fault

I turned down a decent pay day once with a medical professional.

The damage was done and money wasn’t going to fix it.

It’s also how I was raised..

Don’t judge everyone else by your own standards..

McCrack

Rennaws wrote: »

No judge required. No lawyer required.

Doesn’t say much for the legal profession does it ?

No you don't understand-

The sides are represented - solicitor, Junior and Senior Counsel - her side and the insurance company's side.

Liability apportionment was agreed between the sides themselves- the matter went to hearing to assess the amount of damages only.

McCrack

Rennaws wrote: »

I turned down a decent pay day once with a medical professional.

The damage was done and money wasn’t going to fix it.

It’s also how I was raised..

Don’t judge everyone else by your own standards..

Well your high standards wont compensate you for your pain, medical expenses, loss of earnings etc

Nermal

seamus wrote: »

I see. There you have it. Mental health issues should be disregarded because there's just no way to tell. We should probably start shutting down psychology departments and the rest, sure isn't all just a load of blather and opinion talking about people's self-reported symptoms.

None of which I said...

seamus wrote: »

It has no value.

It's not evidence of sufficient quality that it should entitle one to compensation.

seamus wrote: »

FWIW, your commentary is defamatory.

How, exactly?

Nermal

McCrack wrote: »

Well your high standards wont compensate you for your pain, medical expenses, loss of earnings etc

Nermal wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/revealed-personal-injury-payouts-four-times-higher-in-ireland-than-in-uk-37142368.html

Irish people need uniquely high levels of compensation, do they?

The Bishop Basher

McCrack wrote: »

Well your high standards wont compensate you for your pain, medical expenses, loss of earnings etc

As I said, money won’t fix it..

I’m lucky in so many ways..

You can keep your gravy train and the promise of riches.

I have all I need..

The Bishop Basher

Nermal wrote: »

Irish people need uniquely high levels of compensation, do they?

And are paying accordingly..

McCrack

Rennaws wrote: »

As I said, money won’t fix it..

I’m lucky in so many ways..

You can keep your gravy train and the promise of riches.

I have all I need..

Good on you

Most people however aren't in your lucky position and have to seek compensation for their pain and medical expenses and loss of earnings when they are injured arising from anothers negligence.

The Bishop Basher

McCrack wrote: »

Good on you

Most people however aren't in your lucky position and have to seek compensation for their pain and medical expenses and loss of earnings when they are injured arising from anothers negligence.

Well I also play my part and do my best not to walk past red pedestrian lights and out in front of moving cars. Even if I did I still wouldn’t claim because tt would be my own fault but different strokes and all that..

thunderdog

Out of interest, does anyone know how these payouts are calculated? Is there some mathematical formula to figure out how much I would get paid if I crossed the m50 at 8am on Monday morning and unfortunately got hit by oncoming traffic?

Kivaro

No prizes for guessing who on this thread is possibly involved in the lucrative compo industry.

Regarding a magical mathematical formula to determine the unreasonable awards in Irish courts; apparently our God-like judges have inane abilities to judge the validity of a claim based on "observation" i.e. observing the claimant. I'm not saying that a claimant would put on an act in front of a judge ............. well yes, I am.

And who is a major beneficiary in these ludicrous claims?
Solicitors, of course.
One could imagine a frenzy of cozy back-scratching between all those involved in the process.

An independent review of international experts need to take a look at our legal and judicial system.

PlaneSpeeking

McCrack wrote: »

Good on you

Most people however aren't in your lucky position and have to seek compensation for their pain and medical expenses and loss of earnings when they are injured arising from anothers her own negligence.

Fixed that there.

PlaneSpeeking

thunderdog wrote: »

Out of interest, does anyone know how these payouts are calculated? Is there some mathematical formula to figure out how much I would get paid if I crossed the m50 at 8am on Monday morning and unfortunately got hit by oncoming traffic?

Yeah, normal people would think you an eejit for doing that (which you never would I must add, you seem grand!!!) - and some posters who clearly work for a no win-no fee "lawyer" would offer to get you 50 grand and berate everyone else for calling you said eejit.

We'd wish you a speedy recovery obviously but - yeah, eejit would be front and centre!!

knucklehead6

Aaaaaand the red light girl appealed
And won
Awarded 372k now.