Doctor wins £4.5m quid for discrimination
Discussion
carmonk said:
But as I pointed out earlier, it doesn't seem a particularly effective way of doing that. Who is it precisely who's learned a painful lesson here? It's not the trust's money, it's ours and they spend it on our behalf for our benefit. What's wrong with this method:
* Sack the people responsible instead of simply disciplining them or demoting them.
* Give the woman the help she needs to get back into work ASAP
* Pay her until she gets back into work
* Make it very clear that any hint of blacklisting will be a disciplinary offence
As has been pointed out above, the people responsible have mostly resigned anyhow or been demoted, which is not punishment enough. The woman can't return to work, as has been established by the psychiatrist. Blacklisting is a disciplinary offence anyhow, yet that still occurred in this hospital trust. * Sack the people responsible instead of simply disciplining them or demoting them.
* Give the woman the help she needs to get back into work ASAP
* Pay her until she gets back into work
* Make it very clear that any hint of blacklisting will be a disciplinary offence
968 said:
Not really. The money is from this particular hospital trust. All hospital trusts compete for business with neighbouring trusts. This one will now be at a competitive disadvantage to their neighbours and private providers. In addition the massive negative publicity, particularly amongst local doctors will mean that they will refer elsewhere. The patients will not suffer, they will simply be sent to different hospitals. By the sounds of things, the culture and service of that hospital were pretty appalling, much like Stafford in which case the patients would probably benefit from being sent to a different hospital.
But presumably it still costs the taxpayer money? Whether this trust is disadvantaged but continues to exist, or if it goes to the wall, I assume we the taxpayer lose out?Genuine question as I don't claim to understand the funding model, it's not something I've had cause to look at.
paddyhasneeds said:
But presumably it still costs the taxpayer money? Whether this trust is disadvantaged but continues to exist, or if it goes to the wall, I assume we the taxpayer lose out?
Genuine question as I don't claim to understand the funding model, it's not something I've had cause to look at.
No, if the trust goes to the wall, the tax payer will not lose out as we no longer underwrite the losses of hospital trusts. They'll simply go out of business and services will be provided by neighbouring trusts/private providers. Now it could be argued that they may not be as local for the residents of that area, however, given how poor this trust has been and others like it (Stafford) patients may already be referred elsewhere out of preference. Genuine question as I don't claim to understand the funding model, it's not something I've had cause to look at.
Yes, the money paid out ultimately is the tax payers money and yes, as has been pointed out, it is to recompense the career earnings of someone whose life has been ruined. Whether one accepts that ruling or not, is another argument. In a similar argument, if a trust acts negligently and disables someone permanently, they would similarly be liable and would have to pay out tax payers money to settle the claim or meet the requirements of the legal ruling. This is in many ways much the same situation.
Mario149 said:
I actually agree with turbobloke that the damages side plus loss of earnings to date should be paid up from to the woman, then the rest paid monthly as if she were still working. If she then recovers and is able to resume work, payments can stop and everyone "wins"
It's an interesting argument, with merit. I don't know enough about the legal reasons for how the payments are made. Perhaps a legal eagle here can give some information.Additionally, there's a formula, which applies in PI cases at least, whereby by getting the money early, it is assumed you will invest it, and it is reduced as a result.
I don't know it that applies here though tbh. Oh, and you're expected to pay for the NHS care you've had out of it too
I don't know it that applies here though tbh. Oh, and you're expected to pay for the NHS care you've had out of it too
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff