Doctor wins £4.5m quid for discrimination

[968]

carmonk said:

968 said:

carmonk said:

Give me a break, I could show you cases where people have been put into a vegetative state and not received that much compo. It's obscene. Anybody less privileged would not be able to mount such a case and would be expected to get on with their lives. Bullying is a terrible thing and it's widespread but you don't get shopworkers and bus drivers and teachers retiring to live a life of luxury when it happens to them, they have to deal with it and get another fking job.

Good to see so much informed comment, as usual on PH. Here is the actual judgement, which sets out precisely how much is awarded and the reasoning for the costing. If it were another profession, the same costings would apply, though obviously her salary is much higher than shopworkers/bus drivers, so the amount is higher.

Anyhow, here is the actual document, for interest.

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Document...

An absurdity doesn't suddenly become acceptable because it has numbered paragraphs. I don't doubt that the payment was justified on paper but basic common sense dictates that £4.5m is an outrageous award for a woman who's been bullied in her job, especially when you compare it to virtually any other award you care to mention. Who gives a monkey's if the same criteria would be applied to any other profession? For one, most other workers would not be in a position to pursue damages in the first place.

Nonsense. Anyone who is bullied to the point of psychiatric illness would be perfectly able to pursue their bullying employers for loss of earnings. I know a bit about awards for medical negligence, and have been part of panels that have decided them. The calculations are based on a number of factors and are carefully costed to consider a variety of factors from loss of earnings, to the costs of full time carers for patients disabled due to medical negligence. The daily mail hysteria about no compensation being given are simply untrue, and where poor awards have been made, they can and are contested successfully.

carmonk said:

Secondly, you're having a laugh if you think a shopworker or a construction worker would get away with saying the bullying they experienced has rendered them and their partner unable to ever work again. What a crock of ste.

Nonsense. You might have read testimony from the consultant psychiatrist that outlined exactly what had been suffered by the patient, and it was quite extensive. You might think that's a crock of ste, but I await your medical degree and evidence of you being on the specialist register for psychiatry, before accepting your opinion over a professionals.

carmonk said:

Thirdly, it's the money that matters not the procedure. This woman doesn't need £4.5m even accepting she's experience some sort of psychiatric damage. She doesn't need any more money to have an acceptable standard of life than anybody else. Truth is, if the shopworker's lucky they'll get £10K which they'll already have spent by the time it's awarded and they'll have to be out there looking for another job else they'll be starving on the streets. Great to have a choice, and great to be able to retire in absolute luxury on my fking money.

Nonsense. The pay award is based on projected earnings and loss of earnings. A shopworker would not simply get £10k, not a difficult concept to grasp that the amount awarded relates to the multiplied amount over a career of 30 years.

[carmonk]

968 said:

carmonk said:

968 said:

carmonk said:

Give me a break, I could show you cases where people have been put into a vegetative state and not received that much compo. It's obscene. Anybody less privileged would not be able to mount such a case and would be expected to get on with their lives. Bullying is a terrible thing and it's widespread but you don't get shopworkers and bus drivers and teachers retiring to live a life of luxury when it happens to them, they have to deal with it and get another fking job.

Good to see so much informed comment, as usual on PH. Here is the actual judgement, which sets out precisely how much is awarded and the reasoning for the costing. If it were another profession, the same costings would apply, though obviously her salary is much higher than shopworkers/bus drivers, so the amount is higher.

Anyhow, here is the actual document, for interest.

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Document...

An absurdity doesn't suddenly become acceptable because it has numbered paragraphs. I don't doubt that the payment was justified on paper but basic common sense dictates that £4.5m is an outrageous award for a woman who's been bullied in her job, especially when you compare it to virtually any other award you care to mention. Who gives a monkey's if the same criteria would be applied to any other profession? For one, most other workers would not be in a position to pursue damages in the first place.

Nonsense. Anyone who is bullied to the point of psychiatric illness would be perfectly able to pursue their bullying employers for loss of earnings.

Jesus. What do they do in the meantime whilst they're doing it? Survive on air. No, they'd actually need to shape up and go out and get a job.

968 said:

I know a bit about awards for medical negligence, and have been part of panels that have decided them. The calculations are based on a number of factors and are carefully costed to consider a variety of factors from loss of earnings, to the costs of full time carers for patients disabled due to medical negligence. The daily mail hysteria about no compensation being given are simply untrue, and where poor awards have been made, they can and are contested successfully.

Show me some, then. Show me where the street-sweeper or the teacher or the shelf-stacker and their spouses have been payed to retire from work and live comfortably without ever working again because they've experience verbal bullying in the workplace.

968 said:

carmonk said:

Secondly, you're having a laugh if you think a shopworker or a construction worker would get away with saying the bullying they experienced has rendered them and their partner unable to ever work again. What a crock of ste.

Nonsense. You might have read testimony from the consultant psychiatrist that outlined exactly what had been suffered by the patient, and it was quite extensive. You might think that's a crock of ste, but I await your medical degree and evidence of you being on the specialist register for psychiatry, before accepting your opinion over a professionals.

I don't think it's a crock of ste, I know it's a crock of ste. I'm not a cosmologist but I know the moon isn't triangular. Hundreds of thousands of people are bullied at work every single day. I've been bullied at work, my projects sabotaged, my credibility undermined and an appraisal fabricated in an attempt to remove me from a position simply because my previous boss had overspent his budget. Boo fking hoo - you know what, I got on with it and didn't ask for a penny, then I went and got another job. Yes, it was bloody stressful but I never even considered trying make a quick buck out of it, let alone a quick four million bucks. Psychology isn't an evidential science and this case proves that like few others.

968 said:

carmonk said:

Thirdly, it's the money that matters not the procedure. This woman doesn't need £4.5m even accepting she's experience some sort of psychiatric damage. She doesn't need any more money to have an acceptable standard of life than anybody else. Truth is, if the shopworker's lucky they'll get £10K which they'll already have spent by the time it's awarded and they'll have to be out there looking for another job else they'll be starving on the streets. Great to have a choice, and great to be able to retire in absolute luxury on my fking money.

Nonsense. The pay award is based on projected earnings and loss of earnings. A shopworker would not simply get £10k, not a difficult concept to grasp that the amount awarded relates to the multiplied amount over a career of 30 years.

Well, see I used £10K because it's a true example of an award I know was paid out to a shopworker who claimed constructive dismissal due to bullying. I guess they should have demanded their entire wage payed until they were 65. Sure, that would have worked.

[havoc]

bigbubba said:

carmonk said:

Give me a break, I could show you cases where people have been put into a vegetative state and not received that much compo. It's obscene. Anybody less privileged would not be able to mount such a case and would be expected to get on with their lives. Bullying is a terrible thing and it's widespread but you don't get shopworkers and bus drivers and teachers retiring to live a life of luxury when it happens to them, they have to deal with it and get another fking job.

^ This

Linked to earnings is fine, but the above I agree with.

There NEEDS to be a level playing field. And there needs to be some sort of proportionality. With cases against the state in particular, that proportionality goes out of the window as there appears to be a bottomless pit of money to play with (yes, that'll be us taxpayers again!).

[Mojocvh]

Derestrictor said:

No.

This story is bad for my f@cking health.

People endure immense stress and chronic hardship for f@cking years and don't get lottery wins like this.

Jesus H Christ, every f@cking tw@t in the NHS will be clocking this and working out where the f@ck they can score.

In any other walk of life the masses would have said diddums, go and get another job, somewhere else.

I tell you what, how about a nice round million for every grunt on a per missing limb basis from the theatres in Afghanistan or Iraq?

No?

Why?

Because of course, it's linked to earnings.

I know of a NHS GP who is quite happily working the pregnancy gravy train for the second time round 5 YES 5 years after the first birth having worked 2 days per week in the interim.

BAC's, don't ya just LOVE the double standards...

[968]

carmonk said:

Jesus. What do they do in the meantime whilst they're doing it? Survive on air. No, they'd actually need to shape up and go out and get a job.

Do you know what this person did for money during the time they were sacked? I doubt you do.

carmonk said:

Show me some, then. Show me where the street-sweeper or the teacher or the shelf-stacker and their spouses have been payed to retire from work and live comfortably without ever working again because they've experience verbal bullying in the workplace.

You've not read what I posted. I was talking about compensation given for medical negligence which is what was cited in the previous posts. I can give you plenty of examples of people from all walks of life who have been awarded large pay awards due to medical negligence.

carmonk said:

I don't think it's a crock of ste, I know it's a crock of ste. I'm not a cosmologist but I know the moon isn't triangular. Hundreds of thousands of people are bullied at work every single day. I've been bullied at work, my projects sabotaged, my credibility undermined and an appraisal fabricated in an attempt to remove me from a position simply because my previous boss had overspent his budget. Boo fking hoo - you know what, I got on with it and didn't ask for a penny, then I went and got another job. Yes, it was bloody stressful but I never even considered trying make a quick buck out of it, let alone a quick four million bucks. Psychology isn't an evidential science and this case proves that like few others.

You are entirely unqualified to make any attempt at diagnosing the extent of the psychiatric illness suffered by the woman in question. You also have no idea the extent to which she was bullied and the level of harassment she faced. And yet, based on no knowledge of the facts, you seem to be so sure of knowing what is appropriate in this case. Perhaps you should have been a judge. Clearly, not only the psychiatrist is incompetent, but the judge too, in your eyes. Psychiatry has a large evidence base, massive in fact, and such cases are often dealt with by consultant psychiatrists. Oh but of course you know better.

carmonk said:

Well, see I used £10K because it's a true example of an award I know was paid out to a shopworker who claimed constructive dismissal due to bullying. I guess they should have demanded their entire wage payed until they were 65. Sure, that would have worked.

Ah there you go with your habit of posting half truths. It's not simply that this person had been bullied, but she was sacked unlawfully for becoming pregnant, was harassed consistently to the point of developing a major illness that prevents her from working again, in the opinion of a professional, so yes, her lifetime earnings do need to be considered as would anyone with the same circumstances.

[Randy Winkman]

Compo envy.

[carmonk]

968 said:

carmonk said:

Jesus. What do they do in the meantime whilst they're doing it? Survive on air. No, they'd actually need to shape up and go out and get a job.

Do you know what this person did for money during the time they were sacked? I doubt you do.

I'm guessing that with a household income of £250K+ they might have had more means to support themselves for a while than a shelf-stacker or a traffic warden, and more opportunity to pursue what passes for justice. Just wild speculation.

968 said:

carmonk said:

Show me some, then. Show me where the street-sweeper or the teacher or the shelf-stacker and their spouses have been payed to retire from work and live comfortably without ever working again because they've experience verbal bullying in the workplace.

You've not read what I posted. I was talking about compensation given for medical negligence which is what was cited in the previous posts. I can give you plenty of examples of people from all walks of life who have been awarded large pay awards due to medical negligence.

Fine, then post up some cases of medical negligence where the payout was over £4.5m. Weed out the paraplegics, the brain damaged, the ones in persistent vegetative states and the like and see what we're left with. Is any single case comparable to a woman who was verbally bullied at work?

968 said:

carmonk said:

I don't think it's a crock of ste, I know it's a crock of ste. I'm not a cosmologist but I know the moon isn't triangular. Hundreds of thousands of people are bullied at work every single day. I've been bullied at work, my projects sabotaged, my credibility undermined and an appraisal fabricated in an attempt to remove me from a position simply because my previous boss had overspent his budget. Boo fking hoo - you know what, I got on with it and didn't ask for a penny, then I went and got another job. Yes, it was bloody stressful but I never even considered trying make a quick buck out of it, let alone a quick four million bucks. Psychology isn't an evidential science and this case proves that like few others.

You are entirely unqualified to make any attempt at diagnosing the extent of the psychiatric illness suffered by the woman in question. You also have no idea the extent to which she was bullied and the level of harassment she faced. And yet, based on no knowledge of the facts, you seem to be so sure of knowing what is appropriate in this case. Perhaps you should have been a judge. Clearly, not only the psychiatrist is incompetent, but the judge too, in your eyes. Psychiatry has a large evidence base, massive in fact, and such cases are often dealt with by consultant psychiatrists. Oh but of course you know better.

I don't believe it, no. If it's the case she's so traumatised that her and her husband have to give up work and she cannot work in any responsible role again, ever, then there was something wrong with her in the first place. Yet the document says this was not the case. So yes, I'm saying it's bullst. You're right, I'm not a psychiatrist but I have done some reading on the subjective nature of some psychological / psychiatric diagnoses and the ease by which some symptoms can be overplayed or even faked, especially with medical knowledge. Say boo to someone and they're suffering from PTSD nowadays (apart from if you had your legs blown off in a Middle Eastern desert, then you get a few quid and a free wheelchair). Just to quote from 'Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders', the first of many critera for PTSD is...

"must have involved both (a) loss of "physical integrity", or risk of serious injury or death, to self or others, and (b) a response to the event that involved intense fear, horror or helplessness"

I think I missed the bit when she was threatened with death. I only read the bit where she played the race card when the fact she was Polish was mentioned in a telephone conversation. Jesus, whatever happened to common sense?

968 said:

carmonk said:

Well, see I used £10K because it's a true example of an award I know was paid out to a shopworker who claimed constructive dismissal due to bullying. I guess they should have demanded their entire wage payed until they were 65. Sure, that would have worked.

Ah there you go with your habit of posting half truths. It's not simply that this person had been bullied, but she was sacked unlawfully for becoming pregnant

So explain how being sacked is so vastly different from being constructively dismissed. Or do you mean because she was pregnant too? I saw no award for pregnancy.

968 said:

, was harassed consistently to the point of developing a major illness that prevents her from working again, in the opinion of a professional, so yes, her lifetime earnings do need to be considered as would anyone with the same circumstances.

To use your phrase, nonsense. I've just said I don't believe that. Still, let's see some examples of 'anyone' in an average job getting this same deal and retiring for a lifetime of living comfortably as a result of verbal bullying at work. Maybe there are one or two, as badly managed as this fiasco, but to suggest it's the standard response is ridiculous.

[DSM2]

968 said:

Good to see so much informed comment, as usual on PH. Here is the actual judgement, which sets out precisely how much is awarded and the reasoning for the costing. If it were another profession, the same costings would apply, though obviously her salary is much higher than shopworkers/bus drivers, so the amount is higher.

Anyhow, here is the actual document, for interest.

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Document...

If you think that the medical evidence is credible, and if you really believe that they would never be able to work again, then you might think the award was just.

You'd also be a mug.

No wonder the Country is fked.

[Mario149]

I'm with 968 on this one. While £4.5M is an awful lot of money, all the calculations are there to be seen as to how that figure was come by. And assuming that the medical evidence is legit, which there is no reason not to think, then the compensation is correct and justified.

Aside from all that, I'm pretty sure that all those years ago when these events started happening, if you'd gone to that couple and said you can either endure all these years of trauma and then get a wedge of money, or just carry on with your very successful lives still make loads of money but not have the trauma, I'm pretty sure they would choose the latter (I know I would)....even more so for them *because* they were already making heaps of money, so while the lump sum awarded seems massive to the vast majority, for people who were/are already on hundreds of thousands of pounds a year, it's not really actually going to change your life that much.

But what irks me slightly in this thread, and many others on PH, is that some people seem to think that just because you're wealthy/successful already, you're somehow not entitled to the same lawful compensation (and protection in law) as someone who is less fortunate

[Derestrictor]

Utter garbage.

It is a fiendish case of atomic grade bleating and playing a long game which has resulted in a fantastic windfall.

There is a massive difference between earning 200 bags and grabbing 4.5 bar.

The statistical justification holds no water with those in the commercial world who exist outside of the relatively Teflon plated security of certain so called professions.

A repellent example of the legal framework urinating on common sense.

[rsv gone!]

Derestrictor said:

Utter garbage.

It is a fiendish case of atomic grade bleating and playing a long game which has resulted in a fantastic windfall.

This.

Chuck in a claim for £9m and get half of it. Just a cynical manipulation of the system IMO.

[Mario149]

Derestrictor said:

It is a fiendish case of atomic grade bleating and playing a long game

....that fooled multiple medical experts and an employment tribunal judge. I don't buy into that. Have you actually read the entire judgement that was linked to earlier?

Derestrictor said:

There is a massive difference between earning 200 bags and grabbing 4.5 bar.

When you phrase it like that, yes. But again, if you read the report, it's all laid out in black and white how it was calculated. I've been through the entirety of it and couldn't find one unreasonable/incorrect calculation in there. And, let's not forget that the reason why the total is over £4M is to cover the tax that will have to be paid (about £2M) in order that the amount left over is the correct amount.

Derestrictor said:

The statistical justification holds no water with those in the commercial world who exist outside of the relatively Teflon plated security of certain so called professions.

Not quite sure what you're saying here? That being a doctor/obstetrician is not a proper job?

Derestrictor said:

A repellent example of the legal framework urinating on common sense.

....only if you haven't read the judgement in detail

[johnfm]

Interesting how anarchic PH becomes when a result of following lawful procedure goes against their way of thinking.

When there is talk of bonuses being cut for investment bank traders, it is 'ooh, you can't do that. It would breach a contractual agreement'

When it is suggested that board directors of FtSE 100 companies take less pay, especially when their companies perform badly for share holders it's "ooh, that's the free market of labour supply and demand. You can't meddle with that"

Yet, when a middle class professional (who is not a banker or CEO) takes lawful action to protect their livelihood, it is as if they are benefit cheats or tax evaders.

As for the guy who said he'd turn down the offer and just take a million. Yes, of course you would.

PH - Anarchy Matters (unless it is other people being anarchic)

[Sticks.]

carmonk said:

Give me a break, I could show you cases where people have been put into a vegetative state and not received that much compo.

I empathise with you but the popular misconception is re compensation is that it is calculated in terms of the severity of what happened. If it was, a vegetative state, for example, would be a maximum pay out.

But only a small proportion of the total will be for this, the vast majority being loss of income, future income, and additional costs of care, current and future.

So if you were a doley with no prospects and you were run over, your payout wouldn't be much because it'd be putting you back in the financial position you would have been had it not happened. A 25 year old consultant would have got rather more.

This doesn't stop this amount seeming unjust, but arguably it about the loss to the individual.

Incredible muppetry/cunicism on the part of the NHS trust, hope heads will roll.

[Derestrictor]

The formulation of a grotesque payout based upon the estimations of professional peers; do I whiff the stench of the self preservation society?

Suppose James Blunt had lost a hand in Bosnia, just as he was formulating his catalogue of royalty rich ditties.

What framework might have existed to ensure an award of the many millions arising from his future earnings c/o global success if he'd been so injured?

The fact that the system operates in a certain way does not make it palatable.

Their 'rough and ready approach' to future earnings is an unholy piss take - for all we know she might have quit her job or become a complete Shipman.

The reference to Teflon is in stark contrast to a private sector/non-'professional' equivalent where no such assumption of continued employment could be made and where many thousands are seeing lucrative careers evaporate in a shower of economic, molten lava which is no less riven with anxiety but do they go bleating to 'the sympathetic powers that be?'

No, they get smashed but more often than not, have no alternative but to dust themselves down and get back in the saddle.

[paddyhasneeds]

As the OP, like I said, I don't have a huge issue with the payout, I certainly don't have "compo envy", it just seems an extraordinary amount.

I don't doubt that you can be bullied to the point of having PTSD and all sorts, the only thing I would say is I find it a little odd how you can be so ill you can't ever work again, but can pose for photographs and give interviews with the national newspapers.

[mph1977]

voyds9 said:

In a whistle blowing area like the NHS I would be surprised if a "concerted campaign" would happen if it wasn't justified (to some extent).

I have always found the NHS to be so careful to the point of sickening with discrimination.

They really aren't unless it colour or sexuality. Disability or chronic health conditions are open season as is being a man in Nursing in the wrong circumstances ... ( combination of line manager, matron and ADN ) as is being ideologically unsound ...

[mph1977]

carmonk said:

Give me a break, I could show you cases where people have been put into a vegetative state and not received that much compo. It's obscene. Anybody less privileged would not be able to mount such a case and would be expected to get on with their lives. Bullying is a terrible thing and it's widespread but you don't get shopworkers and bus drivers and teachers retiring to live a life of luxury when it happens to them, they have to deal with it and get another fking job.

it's a relatively small settlement where 2 people have been placed in a position where they can no longer work, personal injury claims especially where there is a care component routinely run to far larger sums than that ...

a teacher or bus driver would not get a much based on loss of earnings , also there is the aspect especially with the bus driver example of the fact that loss of reputation does not prevent you from continuing to work in that Industry ..

[carmonk]

Sticks. said:

carmonk said:

Give me a break, I could show you cases where people have been put into a vegetative state and not received that much compo.

I empathise with you but the popular misconception is re compensation is that it is calculated in terms of the severity of what happened. If it was, a vegetative state, for example, would be a maximum pay out.

But only a small proportion of the total will be for this, the vast majority being loss of income, future income, and additional costs of care, current and future.

So if you were a doley with no prospects and you were run over, your payout wouldn't be much because it'd be putting you back in the financial position you would have been had it not happened. A 25 year old consultant would have got rather more.

This doesn't stop this amount seeming unjust, but arguably it about the loss to the individual.

I know that, and I understand the basic underlying reasons, what I'm saying is that they are ridiculous. In general terms there is no reason why such a significant weighting should be put on what someone 'would have earned'. £10 buys the same for a streetsweeper as it does for an investment banker. If there is solid evidence that the person is unable to work for a time then they should be paid commensurate with a basic standard of living with a reasonable weighting based on asset maintenance and the like. If this was the case, of course, you'd get a heck of a lot more people pulling themselves together and getting on with their life instead of trying to con money from the taxpayer that could otherwise be put to good use.

Second, in this specific case you'd have to either be massively gullible or wrong in the head to believe that some verbal bullying brought on PTSD so severe that the woman is unable to ever work again in any significant capacity, and that her husband has to give up his job to care for her. These psychological diagnoses are not backed up by any evidence, they are simply a consensus of opinion that can be swayed according to the wilyness and knowledge of the subject and the agendas of the assessors. If you stub your toe these days you can get signed off with PTSD. In the same way ADHD and dyslexia have become synonyms for 'naughty' and 'thick', PTSD has been diluted from its original - and perfectly valid - diagnosis to include anybody who's had an uncomfortable experience or minor injury. It's bullst of the highest order and doubly so when you think where the compo money is coming from.

[fido]

johnfm said:

Yet, when a middle class professional (who is not a banker or CEO) takes lawful action to protect their livelihood, it is as if they are benefit cheats or tax evaders.

Another dig at financial services workers? Middle class professionals in financial services are regularly forced out of their jobs without this sort of massive compensation - you just move on, take the compromise agreement (which if you're really lucky will be a years pay but more often than not will be less .. been there twice before) and get another job. £4.5m is way over the top, but i can't say i'm that surprised with this sort of largesse in the public sector. As for unemployable, well if you tried this on in the private sector then no one would want to employ you - so mostly people don't unless they have no plans to work in the sector again.

I know 968 will defend his fellow professionals to the hilt (as vehemently as Bob Crow would defend another pointless tube strike) and he would be stupid not to, but this all hinges on future employability and if only they could call her bluff and give her another job (as a consultant in another trust) ... of course we would hear about some other reason why she can't work. Violins.

Edited by fido on Saturday 17th December 15:08