Doctor wins £4.5m quid for discrimination
Discussion
Derestrictor said:
Jesus Christ when did you last earn that kind of money?
This, like 99% of compo scumwerk is naught less than a tale of extreme cry babyism bringing home not just some bacon but a whole f@cking herd.
It's a national scandal, like the whole HSE / blame-claim litigation gig. Secret runes baffling the masses by the wanton obfuscation of common sense, to wit legalese; a population of slack jawed hypocrites educated way beyond their intelligence.
I don't expect anyone in the game to condemn it - if I'm honest, I can't say I would if I were plugged into such a guaranteed income - but it doesn't alter the fact that to anyone outside this magic circle of bulls
t, professional protectionism, it reeks to high heaven.
As an aside - answer my question - how do you predict future income streams? that very Blunt Dilemma, as it were?
Quite easily in this case. A Consultant in the NHS gets a salary which is public record. The basic fact of this case that doesn't seem to be accepted is that the doctor was found to be so ill that she would be unable to work, ever again. If you choose not to believe that expert opinion, then contest the decision. If the NHS trust in question thinks it's a contestable decision, they will. As said before, the ruling is very clear and the figures are there for display, so go and read it.This, like 99% of compo scumwerk is naught less than a tale of extreme cry babyism bringing home not just some bacon but a whole f@cking herd.
It's a national scandal, like the whole HSE / blame-claim litigation gig. Secret runes baffling the masses by the wanton obfuscation of common sense, to wit legalese; a population of slack jawed hypocrites educated way beyond their intelligence.
I don't expect anyone in the game to condemn it - if I'm honest, I can't say I would if I were plugged into such a guaranteed income - but it doesn't alter the fact that to anyone outside this magic circle of bulls
t, professional protectionism, it reeks to high heaven.As an aside - answer my question - how do you predict future income streams? that very Blunt Dilemma, as it were?
carmonk said:
dandarez said:
Christ, if over my numbers of years in work I had received 'any' recompense for what I consider to have been 'injury to my feelings' I'd be set up and permanently relaxing on a beach in the Carribean!
And I'd own the island you were relaxing on.Marf said:
Mario149 said:
I think basically what it comes down to is whether we accept that this woman is now incapable/unable to work in her field for the rest of her working life through no fault of her own i.e. do you trust the judgement of several medical professionals who say that this is the case. If you believe it is true, and have actually *read* the judgement in full (which I suspect many people commenting on here haven't), then the compensation amount of about £2M after taxes makes total sense and is totally justified.
If you choose not to believe the medical professionals with umpteen years of training and clinical experience, and decide that your gut feeling from reading one media article and using it to judge someone you've never met, then pretty much any amount over her lost earnings to date is going to be too much.
Obviously I can't be sure as I don't have access to records, but there have probably been similar cases in the past that didn't receive similar coverage/outrage because the amount was smaller because the claimant was a regular person on say £20k per year so would have only netted a few hundred K rather than 2M
Why investigate things for yourself when you can get het up, frothy and hot under the collar after being told what to think by a newspaper?If you choose not to believe the medical professionals with umpteen years of training and clinical experience, and decide that your gut feeling from reading one media article and using it to judge someone you've never met, then pretty much any amount over her lost earnings to date is going to be too much.
Obviously I can't be sure as I don't have access to records, but there have probably been similar cases in the past that didn't receive similar coverage/outrage because the amount was smaller because the claimant was a regular person on say £20k per year so would have only netted a few hundred K rather than 2M
This isn't just ordinary run of the mill type bullying. If it were, I'd be more inclined to agree with Carmonk.
The issue is that the victim has sufferered has suffered racial and sex discrimination.
These are the two biggies in employment law. There is no ceiling on the ammount that can be awarded in these cases.
The issue is that the victim has sufferered has suffered racial and sex discrimination.
These are the two biggies in employment law. There is no ceiling on the ammount that can be awarded in these cases.
Tiff, I'm not going to fall out with you over this but the divergence in fairness compared to the private sector/less 'protected' roles 'within society' and actual recourse in the latter context with similar effects yet caused by exogenous, less easy to define factors is spleen fragmentingly chronic.
Indeed, there is a moral dimension.
You'll forgive the easily dismissed 'daily wail' nature of my previously ref'd e.g. but how do we, as a society, not grant an individual who has lost physical dexterity/mobility c/o conflict in the service of the nation similar windfalls when such verdicts as this transpire?
The answer which coolly (coldly) responds with "based on income" is that worthy of further condemnation.
If you can't see the Kraken slapping grotesqueness of this decision then I respectfully beg you allow me to explode in a quiet corner of the sanitarium.
Indeed, there is a moral dimension.
You'll forgive the easily dismissed 'daily wail' nature of my previously ref'd e.g. but how do we, as a society, not grant an individual who has lost physical dexterity/mobility c/o conflict in the service of the nation similar windfalls when such verdicts as this transpire?
The answer which coolly (coldly) responds with "based on income" is that worthy of further condemnation.
If you can't see the Kraken slapping grotesqueness of this decision then I respectfully beg you allow me to explode in a quiet corner of the sanitarium.
johnfm said:
carmonk said:
dandarez said:
Christ, if over my numbers of years in work I had received 'any' recompense for what I consider to have been 'injury to my feelings' I'd be set up and permanently relaxing on a beach in the Carribean!
And I'd own the island you were relaxing on.Derestrictor said:
Tiff, I'm not going to fall out with you over this but the divergence in fairness compared to the private sector/less 'protected' roles 'within society' and actual recourse in the latter context with similar effects yet caused by exogenous, less easy to define factors is spleen fragmentingly chronic.
Indeed, there is a moral dimension.
You'll forgive the easily dismissed 'daily wail' nature of my previously ref'd e.g. but how do we, as a society, not grant an individual who has lost physical dexterity/mobility c/o conflict in the service of the nation similar windfalls when such verdicts as this transpire?
The answer which coolly (coldly) responds with "based on income" is that worthy of further condemnation.
If you can't see the Kraken slapping grotesqueness of this decision then I respectfully beg you allow me to explode in a quiet corner of the sanitarium.
Wrong brother.Indeed, there is a moral dimension.
You'll forgive the easily dismissed 'daily wail' nature of my previously ref'd e.g. but how do we, as a society, not grant an individual who has lost physical dexterity/mobility c/o conflict in the service of the nation similar windfalls when such verdicts as this transpire?
The answer which coolly (coldly) responds with "based on income" is that worthy of further condemnation.
If you can't see the Kraken slapping grotesqueness of this decision then I respectfully beg you allow me to explode in a quiet corner of the sanitarium.
With regards to divergence with the private sector, your point is simply untrue. Having been involved in negligence cases to people from the 'private sector' I can say that this judgement and the process followed is the same as that for any negligence case for any member of society. The issue that you can't accept is based on her income. Like it or not a Consultant is paid a substantial amount of money. Starting Consultant salary is £74k reaching around £100k+ given experience. You may think that's too much, but I would strongly disagree and represents a bargain, when one considers the level of training and expertise that represents. It's also a bargain compared to other countries pay and indeed what could be earned if entirely in the private sector.
With regards to pay awards and compensation to soldiers who have come back maimed from war, I couldn't agree more, it's appalling how little they are recompensed, but I believe the MOD deals with those pay awards separately and in a different manner. I don't think that's right for one minute but that is the state of affairs. Nonetheless, the judge or the court in general cannot use MoD scales of recompense to decide what appropriate levels of awards should be.
What has also been missed in much of the frothing that has gone on in this thread is that this pay award also includes tax on ALL her earnings. Therefore at least £2m will be paid in tax. The rest is simply her career earnings for another 28 years (I think). Now, in a circular discussion, the issue is whether you believe the testimony of the psychiatrist whose expert opinion was that this person could not work ever again, due to the level of distress she suffered. Before the army of PH types descend on the 'boo hoo' 'violins' type nonsense, I don't know what level of disability she has suffered and I know for certain that no one here does either. I also know that very few, if any, posters here actually know anything about psychiatric illness even with the 5minutes of google research that usually accompanies some opinions here.
There have been £1+ awards in the private sector, without the psychological trauma that the doc suffered http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1331430/Ba... . That would likely have been more but they reckoned she would have lost her job in the city cut-backs anyway.
The doc didn't get the figure her lawyers for looking for - if you read through the judgment the tribunal nit-picked at several areas.
It seems to me that this is largely about punishing the Trust, though. We should be railing against them for getting us into a situation that's cost us a small fortune.
The doc didn't get the figure her lawyers for looking for - if you read through the judgment the tribunal nit-picked at several areas.
It seems to me that this is largely about punishing the Trust, though. We should be railing against them for getting us into a situation that's cost us a small fortune.
Edited by Deva Link on Saturday 17th December 21:37
Derestrictor said:
Tiff, I'm not going to fall out with you over this but the divergence in fairness compared to the private sector/less 'protected' roles 'within society' and actual recourse in the latter context with similar effects yet caused by exogenous, less easy to define factors is spleen fragmentingly chronic.
Indeed, there is a moral dimension.
You'll forgive the easily dismissed 'daily wail' nature of my previously ref'd e.g. but how do we, as a society, not grant an individual who has lost physical dexterity/mobility c/o conflict in the service of the nation similar windfalls when such verdicts as this transpire?
The answer which coolly (coldly) responds with "based on income" is that worthy of further condemnation.
If you can't see the Kraken slapping grotesqueness of this decision then I respectfully beg you allow me to explode in a quiet corner of the sanitarium.
Military casualties recieve a higher standard of treatment than that available on the NHS - for instance a patient would be discharged from inpatient care if they were an NHS patient on a tertiary Rehab unit will be sent to Headley Court for further inpatient rehab if they are serving military personnel.Indeed, there is a moral dimension.
You'll forgive the easily dismissed 'daily wail' nature of my previously ref'd e.g. but how do we, as a society, not grant an individual who has lost physical dexterity/mobility c/o conflict in the service of the nation similar windfalls when such verdicts as this transpire?
The answer which coolly (coldly) responds with "based on income" is that worthy of further condemnation.
If you can't see the Kraken slapping grotesqueness of this decision then I respectfully beg you allow me to explode in a quiet corner of the sanitarium.
Military personnel injured on operations recieve 100% of their pay and credit for service towards their ordinary pension until discharge - where the rest of the public sector is likely to have dismissed them after at most 12 months and even if they aren't dismissed the maximum sick pay ( e.g. plod or NHS ) is 6 months full and 6 months half.
their spouse and any children will remain accomodated by the MoD in theior existing quarters as well as temporary accomodation if this is not in easy reach of where the injured serviceperson is being cared for ( including moving heave nand earth for compassionate flights if it;s not somewhere where they can easily be put on the next scheduled flight).
The military is unique among public sector employers in being allowed to operate it;s own Health provision ( beyond bog standard occ health) and to contract these services from any provider - rather than being subject to the whims of PCTs and their political commisars or reliant on Charitable services - while there are equivalent facilities (in scope) to Headley court for various groups they are entirely charitably funded ...
968 said:
What has also been missed in much of the frothing that has gone on in this thread is that this pay award also includes tax on ALL her earnings. Therefore at least £2m will be paid in tax. The rest is simply her career earnings for another 28 years (I think). Now, in a circular discussion, the issue is whether you believe the testimony of the psychiatrist whose expert opinion was that this person could not work ever again, due to the level of distress she suffered. Before the army of PH types descend on the 'boo hoo' 'violins' type nonsense, I don't know what level of disability she has suffered and I know for certain that no one here does either. I also know that very few, if any, posters here actually know anything about psychiatric illness even with the 5minutes of google research that usually accompanies some opinions here.
Better five than none. And if you're referring to me you're wrong in saying I know nothing of psychiatric illnesses, although I'm far from being an expert or professional. I can, however, when I see something plainly absurd, express an opinion which goes against your argument, which appears to be an automatic appeal to authority. Often an appealing to a clear authority on a matter is a perfectly reasonable stance but when evidence shows it's way out of kilter with what most right-minded people expect and have experience of then it should be questioned. Me, I simply do not believe it. You do, fine. But a question, do you also agree with the 1.3 million diagnoses of 'unfit to work' in the UK which the government are currently trying to overturn through re-assessment. Admitted many re-assessments are based on a change of vocation but a lot are under question as to their core validity. Each one of these has been vouched for by a GP and / or other medical professional, so are these people always right too? Or are you saying you admit that medical professionals are sometimes wrong, especially in a field as non-evidential as psychiatric diagnosis, but for some reason you don't believe this medical professional was wrong?carmonk said:
Better five than none.
No, it really isn't.carmonk said:
And if you're referring to me you're wrong in saying I know nothing of psychiatric illnesses, although I'm far from being an expert or professional.
So actually you know nothing of psychiatric illness. If you do, I'd like to see your qualifications and know what your GMC number is. Failing that your psychology degree.carmonk said:
I can, however, when I see something plainly absurd, express an opinion which goes against your argument, which appears to be an automatic appeal to authority. Often an appealing to a clear authority on a matter is a perfectly reasonable stance but when evidence shows it's way out of kilter with what most right-minded people expect and have experience of then it should be questioned.
That's your opinion. Not the opinion of the judge or the court, but your opinion, and you know what, your opinion is as irrelevant as mine in this matter, as the judge makes the decision based on the evidence presented to him/her.carmonk said:
Me, I simply do not believe it. You do, fine. But a question, do you also agree with the 1.3 million diagnoses of 'unfit to work' in the UK which the government are currently trying to overturn through re-assessment. Admitted many re-assessments are based on a change of vocation but a lot are under question as to their core validity. Each one of these has been vouched for by a GP and / or other medical professional, so are these people always right too? Or are you saying you admit that medical professionals are sometimes wrong, especially in a field as non-evidential as psychiatric diagnosis, but for some reason you don't believe this medical professional was wrong?
The evidence provided to the court was a rigorous and thorough psychiatric assessment of the patient, by a consultant psychiatrist who is an expert witness. This assessment was provided by a specialist psychiatrist and not a GP. There is a tremendous difference in ability between a Consultant psychiatrist and a GP in diagnosing severe mental illnesses. Indeed GPs would be happy to defer to the experience of their colleagues. The level of assessment required for this particular case was very detailed and of course was contested by the counsel for the defence, but nonetheless satisfied the judge, so it seems there is some good reason to accept that judgement. If the evidence was so flimsy or contestable then do tell why the defence counsel could not convince the judge?968 said:
carmonk said:
Better five than none.
No, it really isn't.968 said:
carmonk said:
And if you're referring to me you're wrong in saying I know nothing of psychiatric illnesses, although I'm far from being an expert or professional.
So actually you know nothing of psychiatric illness. If you do, I'd like to see your qualifications and know what your GMC number is. Failing that your psychology degree.968 said:
carmonk said:
I can, however, when I see something plainly absurd, express an opinion which goes against your argument, which appears to be an automatic appeal to authority. Often an appealing to a clear authority on a matter is a perfectly reasonable stance but when evidence shows it's way out of kilter with what most right-minded people expect and have experience of then it should be questioned.
That's your opinion. Not the opinion of the judge or the court, but your opinion, and you know what, your opinion is as irrelevant as mine in this matter, as the judge makes the decision based on the evidence presented to him/her.968 said:
carmonk said:
Me, I simply do not believe it. You do, fine. But a question, do you also agree with the 1.3 million diagnoses of 'unfit to work' in the UK which the government are currently trying to overturn through re-assessment. Admitted many re-assessments are based on a change of vocation but a lot are under question as to their core validity. Each one of these has been vouched for by a GP and / or other medical professional, so are these people always right too? Or are you saying you admit that medical professionals are sometimes wrong, especially in a field as non-evidential as psychiatric diagnosis, but for some reason you don't believe this medical professional was wrong?
The evidence provided to the court was a rigorous and thorough psychiatric assessment of the patient, by a consultant psychiatrist who is an expert witness. This assessment was provided by a specialist psychiatrist and not a GP. There is a tremendous difference in ability between a Consultant psychiatrist and a GP in diagnosing severe mental illnesses.968 said:
Indeed GPs would be happy to defer to the experience of their colleagues. The level of assessment required for this particular case was very detailed and of course was contested by the counsel for the defence, but nonetheless satisfied the judge, so it seems there is some good reason to accept that judgement. If the evidence was so flimsy or contestable then do tell why the defence counsel could not convince the judge?
I have no idea.carmonk: I think that what the back-and-forth between you and 968 boils down to is that, despite the PH tendency to attempt to boil every issue down to two binary positions, "it's actually a bit more complicated than that".
Neither you nor I are in a position to second-guess the expert opinion of a consultant psychiatrist; to attempt to do so would just reveal our ignorance.
Given that the decision in this case hinges on that expert opinion, it seems to me that there's little to do other than go "why don't they just give her the two million tax free and save a stload of paperwork?"
Neither you nor I are in a position to second-guess the expert opinion of a consultant psychiatrist; to attempt to do so would just reveal our ignorance.
Given that the decision in this case hinges on that expert opinion, it seems to me that there's little to do other than go "why don't they just give her the two million tax free and save a s
tload of paperwork?"carmonk said:
I didn't mention mental illness in my question, I said long-term sick. A GP's job might well be less specialist but in most cases a physical diagnosis is far more clear-cut and evidential than a psychiatric one. Present a case to half a dozen psychiatrists and if you get a unanimous conformity of diagnosis I'll eat my hat. Although wait, I just realised that without letters after my name I can't even express an opinion on the subject - damn.
I've edited the rest of your post out as it's utterly incoherent.With regards to this bit. No, a GP signing off a patient on 'long term sick' is not far more clear cut or evidential. Far from it in fact, hence why the government is forcing re-assessments. Your assertion that there is no evidence based behind psychiatry is bizarre. There is a huge evidence based in psychiatry, really. Making this comment displays how ill-informed you are on the subject. Yes, there can be disagreements on diagnosis and if there is, then the defence counsel had every opportunity to demonstrate that fact. However, they didn't, so perhaps the judgement was correct after all.
CommanderJameson said:
carmonk: I think that what the back-and-forth between you and 968 boils down to is that, despite the PH tendency to attempt to boil every issue down to two binary positions, "it's actually a bit more complicated than that".
Neither you nor I are in a position to second-guess the expert opinion of a consultant psychiatrist; to attempt to do so would just reveal our ignorance.
As I say, I'm just expressing my opinion. I don't know all the details and I don't have a PhD in psychiatry but the lack of precedence and absurdity of verbal bullying causing a lifetime inability to function in an otherwise healthy person is clear.Neither you nor I are in a position to second-guess the expert opinion of a consultant psychiatrist; to attempt to do so would just reveal our ignorance.
I also wonder how much the seven year court case contributed to her state of mind. If she'd have simply pulled herself together in the first instance would all this have been even necessary? Millions of people suffer bullying in their jobs, many far more serious than this (based on the reports), yet it's vanishingly rare for such a far-reaching and extravagent award to be made. The people responsible for the bullying should be disciplined or sacked but it seems restitution is solely concerned with flinging obscene amounts of cash at the plaintive.
The £4.5m has been paid out from a trust that's already struggling with finanances and this extra burden will be to the detriment of patients who actually need the money to help with their serious, evidential illnesses. Instead we have two people living in luxury for the rest of their lives whilst doing precisely bugger all. If this had been a shop assistant and her husband who'd been paid £400K to spend the rest of their lives at home nobody would be defending the decision, everyone would be up in arms about the 'scrounging generation.' Claim 6 months' tax credits on PH and you're a parasite.
CommanderJameson said:
Given that the decision in this case hinges on that expert opinion, it seems to me that there's little to do other than go "why don't they just give her the two million tax free and save a stload of paperwork?"
One of many questions that need to be asked.tload of paperwork?"CommanderJameson said:
The trust should have thought about the money before fking up on a scale this grand.
True, but that doesn't alter the facts, that this award means some patients are likely to receive a lower standard of care than they otherwise would have on account of the money not being there. What would be far more logical would be to sack those responsible and give this woman whatever help she needs to get another job, plus a reasonable compensation offer in the meantime. Instead we end up with a trust struggling to survive, two people payed to live in luxury doing nothing, and the people resonsible for the bullying still working there. Madness.king up on a scale this grand.968 said:
carmonk said:
I didn't mention mental illness in my question, I said long-term sick. A GP's job might well be less specialist but in most cases a physical diagnosis is far more clear-cut and evidential than a psychiatric one. Present a case to half a dozen psychiatrists and if you get a unanimous conformity of diagnosis I'll eat my hat. Although wait, I just realised that without letters after my name I can't even express an opinion on the subject - damn.
I've edited the rest of your post out as it's utterly incoherent.968 said:
With regards to this bit. No, a GP signing off a patient on 'long term sick' is not far more clear cut or evidential. Far from it in fact, hence why the government is forcing re-assessments. Your assertion that there is no evidence based behind psychiatry is bizarre. There is a huge evidence based in psychiatry, really. Making this comment displays how ill-informed you are on the subject.
So what is the objective evidence for a diagnosis of PTSD? Diagnosis of PTSD like many 'mental' afflications is almost entirely symptomatic, behaviour-based and in a large part anecdotal. And I'm not talking about evidence for efficacy of treatment, I'm talking about the initial diagnosis. It also requires specific triggers which, bizarrely, do not appear to be present in this case. A little different from brian damage or MS or Ulcerative Colitis or other chronic physical illnesses that are diagnosed on the basis of hard evidence.968 said:
Yes, there can be disagreements on diagnosis and if there is, then the defence counsel had every opportunity to demonstrate that fact. However, they didn't, so perhaps the judgement was correct after all.
So you agree with the judge because a judge could not be wrong. Fine. I disagree, that's what I'm saying.Anyway, I should be working so I'll leave you to have the last word.
carmonk said:
As I say, I'm just expressing my opinion. I don't know all the details and I don't have a PhD in psychiatry but the lack of precedence and absurdity of verbal bullying causing a lifetime inability to function in an otherwise healthy person is clear.
I do wonder if, once this all blows over, she'll make a miraculous recovery. Without wading through the report again, there was a comment in there about her being a year away from being able to go to a GMC review, so there must be some anticipation that she may be able to be passed fit to practice.
carmonk said:
CommanderJameson said:
The trust should have thought about the money before fking up on a scale this grand.
True, but that doesn't alter the facts, that this award means some patients are likely to receive a lower standard of care than they otherwise would have on account of the money not being there. What would be far more logical would be to sack those responsible and give this woman whatever help she needs to get another job, plus a reasonable compensation offer in the meantime. Instead we end up with a trust struggling to survive, two people payed to live in luxury doing nothing, and the people resonsible for the bullying still working there. Madness.king up on a scale this grand.Further, the lifestyle they choose has got, quite frankly, f
k-all to do with anyone, and using a phrase like "payed to live in luxury" is simply an appeal to emotion.I agree that the bullies should be sacked.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff