Doctor wins £4.5m quid for discrimination
Discussion
Deva Link said:
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.
Well, if she does, then I will adjust my opinion of the outcome of this case.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.
Fancy that, eh? Changing my point of view as more facts emerge. Appalling! I'll lose my PH PPP bonus!
CommanderJameson said:
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.
Exactly. I think they reckoned her salary was about £90K/yr - that's less than the average PHer, and her husband had given up his job.k-all to do with anyone, and using a phrase like "payed to live in luxury" is simply an appeal to emotion.CommanderJameson said:
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.First, 'the well is tainted' bit. No, AFAIK she was not awarded a penny on the basis that she is allegedly blacklisted. That has nothing whatsoever to do with this case unless you have evidence to the contrary. Furthermore, even if it is true, these judgements simply validate and encourage such puerile behaviour.
CommanderJameson said:
Further, the lifestyle they choose has got, quite frankly, fk-all to do with anyone, and using a phrase like "payed to live in luxury" is simply an appeal to emotion.
Where do you think that money came from, the judge's bank account? Of course it has to do with other people, it's the tax payers' money that's being spunked up the wall, money than could be put to the use it was intended. "Luxury" was not an appeal to emotion it's a fact. If you couldn't live in luxury given £2m then go join Michael Carrol down the pub, because I certainly could. You could live well off the interest alone, given an average rate.k-all to do with anyone, and using a phrase like "payed to live in luxury" is simply an appeal to emotion.carmonk said:
Where do you think that money came from, the judge's bank account? Of course it has to do with other people, it's the tax payers' money that's being spunked up the wall, money than could be put to the use it was intended. "Luxury" was not an appeal to emotion it's a fact. If you couldn't live in luxury given £2m then go join Michael Carrol down the pub, because I certainly could. You could live well off the interest alone, given an average rate.
Except that it isn't spunked up the wall, its the tax payers money that would have paid her if her career hadn't been destroyed and she'd not been unlawfully dismissedCommanderJameson said:
The trust should have thought about the money before fking up on a scale this grand.
This trust (like many others) is more concerned about the pointless metric rather than patient car eor the welfare of it's staff...king up on a scale this grand.i suppose it would have pleased some of the posters on this thread if Dr Michalak was found dead in her after committing suicide like one of the members of the Nursing staff at MYHT...
uknick said:
Interesting all the rhetoric about ill or not ill, is the payment justified?, but nothing about why the trust had to pay and not those responsible as picked out by the judge. Surely, if those responsible would be liable they might think about doing it in the first place?
Vicarious liability ...uknick said:
I know, but if that were removed, and it can be if somebody acts well outside the rules. However, until then people will have no deterrent to stop them acting like ****** as they know the employer will have to pick up the cost and they go on their merry way causing misery.
Yes the lack of accountability of the staff involved is a huge scandal. I'm not sure why the trust has claimed liability rather than those involved. Perhaps the trust still supports their actions.968 said:
Perhaps the trust still supports their actions.
Para 39:"The second basis upon which the claim is advanced is that the First Respondent has failed to take appropriate action against those of their employees criticised by us in our first decision. That is not, in reality, the case. Mandy Williamson has been disciplined but the sanction imposed was short of dismissal by reason, no doubt, that she was acting on instructions of the Medical Director. Dr Dawson is no longer in the employment of the First Respondent, Mrs Nicholls was subject to disciplinary action, she was given a written warning and demoted. We understand that she has since left the Trust. Dr White was the subject of disciplinary action but before any sanction could be imposed upon him he resigned. As far as we can tell the Trust could not have done very much more than that."
Deva Link said:
Para 39:
"The second basis upon which the claim is advanced is that the First Respondent has failed to take appropriate action against those of their employees criticised by us in our first decision. That is not, in reality, the case. Mandy Williamson has been disciplined but the sanction imposed was short of dismissal by reason, no doubt, that she was acting on instructions of the Medical Director. Dr Dawson is no longer in the employment of the First Respondent, Mrs Nicholls was subject to disciplinary action, she was given a written warning and demoted. We understand that she has since left the Trust. Dr White was the subject of disciplinary action but before any sanction could be imposed upon him he resigned. As far as we can tell the Trust could not have done very much more than that."
Aha. Thanks"The second basis upon which the claim is advanced is that the First Respondent has failed to take appropriate action against those of their employees criticised by us in our first decision. That is not, in reality, the case. Mandy Williamson has been disciplined but the sanction imposed was short of dismissal by reason, no doubt, that she was acting on instructions of the Medical Director. Dr Dawson is no longer in the employment of the First Respondent, Mrs Nicholls was subject to disciplinary action, she was given a written warning and demoted. We understand that she has since left the Trust. Dr White was the subject of disciplinary action but before any sanction could be imposed upon him he resigned. As far as we can tell the Trust could not have done very much more than that."
968 said:
carmonk said:
Where do you think that money came from, the judge's bank account? Of course it has to do with other people, it's the tax payers' money that's being spunked up the wall, money than could be put to the use it was intended. "Luxury" was not an appeal to emotion it's a fact. If you couldn't live in luxury given £2m then go join Michael Carrol down the pub, because I certainly could. You could live well off the interest alone, given an average rate.
Except that it isn't spunked up the wall, its the tax payers money that would have paid her if her career hadn't been destroyed and she'd not been unlawfully dismissedSurely the element of the award for punitive damages will be paid in a lump sum up-front, and rightly so assuming the judgement is correct, whereas the element for lost earnings will be paid monthly as the salary would have been, using medical consultant pay awards and a typical career progression (if there is a pay scale) to deermine each year's payments. Somehow I don't think that's going to be the case, is it?
paddyhasneeds said:
If it's a lump sum they'll probably live off the interest. I assume that's how pay outs are made and it's not like the Daily Soov's "Win a Million" where you get £50k a year for 20 years?
My thoughts were that it would be a lump sum, but in balancing the interests of the aggrieved consultant and the taxpayer, I'd be in favour of the damages element being a lump sum and the lost earnings element as a monthly payment. Hopefully the consultant in this case will live to a ripe old age and quickly come to a position of being at peace with the world and enjoy every minute of her 'retirement' but if not, a lifetime's earnings will have already been paid out of the public purse. What's unfair about providing monthly payments for the loss of earnings element? Calculated as per my previous post.carmonk said:
And she no doubt would have delivered benefit for that money in her role. As it is, they have to pay someone else her wage and spunk £2m up the wall.
Perhaps they should have thought of that before sacking her unlawfully and bullying her out of her mind. Trusts like these need to learn a painful lesson about how to behave as a corporation.968 said:
Perhaps they should have thought of that before sacking her unlawfully and bullying her out of her mind. Trusts like these need to learn a painful lesson about how to behave as a corporation.
How is it painful? It's public money. If there's less of it the only people who will suffer are the public, or put another way, their patients.paddyhasneeds said:
How is it painful? It's public money. If there's less of it the only people who will suffer are the public, or put another way, their patients.
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.968 said:
carmonk said:
And she no doubt would have delivered benefit for that money in her role. As it is, they have to pay someone else her wage and spunk £2m up the wall.
Perhaps they should have thought of that before sacking her unlawfully and bullying her out of her mind. Trusts like these need to learn a painful lesson about how to behave as a corporation.* 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
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff