A&E Road Traffic Accident Charge?

DaveyDave · 30-07-2014 6:43pm #1

Hey guys,

I was hit by a car cycling to work on Friday, brought to A&E in an ambulance, xray on the knee and ankle and all is well, just soft tissue damage and a week on crutches.

I got my bill today, the expected €100 A&E charge along with a ridiculous €346 Road Traffic Accident Charge.

I'm waiting for the Garda to contact me back after I said he could forward my details onto the driver. I'm guessing he'd want to deal with it personally but just in case he doesn't I need to get insurance details off the Gardai. I'll call later to see what's up.

In the mean time, my mam called the hospital about the charge and she was told the charge only applies if you're making a claim. That doesn't make sense to me. I'm expecting to have to pay this fee no matter if the drive gives me cash or it's the insurance company.

Anyone know what the story is with this ridiculous charge? It's bad enough I was hit by a car, learning that there's a daily charge of €346 for being a VICTIM is an absolute joke.

I doubt the driver has over €700 for damage to my bike, loss of wages and the medical bills so I most likely will be making a claim.

NSAman · 30-07-2014 6:47pm

DaveyDave wrote: »

Hey guys,

I was hit by a car cycling to work on Friday, brought to A&E in an ambulance, xray on the knee and ankle and all is well, just soft tissue damage and a week on crutches.

I got my bill today, the expected €100 A&E charge along with a ridiculous €346 Road Traffic Accident Charge.

I'm waiting for the Garda to contact me back after I said he could forward my details onto the driver. I'm guessing he'd want to deal with it personally but just in case he doesn't I need to get insurance details off the Gardai. I'll call later to see what's uo

A what??A Road Traffic Accident Charge? You are not serious???

davo10 · 30-07-2014 6:49pm

Consumer issue or insurance issue? You owe hospital for ambulance and A&E charge, driver/insurance owe you for expenses. Did he/she stop and help you?

RTA charge is for emergency ambulance dispatch and attendance. I think it is right that driver/insurance should pay rather than you/taxpayer. Unfortunately as you were the recipient of the service, you get charged and then it is up to you to recover the money.

Stheno · 30-07-2014 6:55pm

NSAman wrote: »

A what??A Road Traffic Accident Charge? You are not serious???

Seems pretty standard across the A&E and was introduced as part of the 1986 Health Act

From St. James website:

Road Traffic Accidents Cases:
The health (Amendment) Act 1986 requires the hospital to levy the following charges upon a person who has been the victim of a Road Traffic Accident.

A&E: €100 Statutory Charge plus €406.00 RTA A&E charge
Inpatient: €1025.61 per day plus *€75 statutory charge plus €170.00 RTA outpatient charge
Physio: €170.00 per RTA Physio attendance

NSAman · 30-07-2014 6:59pm

Stheno wrote: »

Seems pretty standard across the A&E and was introduced as part of the 1986 Health Act

From St. James website:

Just seems absolutely crazy.... Sorry...no experience in this. So should there be a sexual deviancy charge for those who have sex accidents?

listermint · 30-07-2014 7:01pm

NSAman wrote: »

Just seems absolutely crazy.... Sorry...no experience in this. So should there be a sexual deviancy charge for those who have sex accidents?

That's a ridiculous analogy. It pays for the ambulance callout and crash scene attendance.

Stupid analogy.

Stheno · 30-07-2014 7:03pm

NSAman wrote: »

Just seems absolutely crazy.... Sorry...no experience in this. So should there be a sexual deviancy charge for those who have sex accidents?

The idea is that in the event of an RTA the charges will be reimbursed by the insurance of the driver at fault iirc following a claim by the injured party.

So insurance picks up the tab, not the hospital

Riva10 · 30-07-2014 7:12pm

Surely it is wrong to assume that the car driver was in the wrong and is liable . The guilty party should have to pay, regardless of who it is. If it is the motorist who is guilty, then his insurance company will pay up and if it is the cyclist iwho is at fault,
then he should pay.

dudara · 30-07-2014 7:31pm

There are call out charges applied for the fire brigade, for using A&E and for ambulance services. They send the bill to the recipient of the services.

Now, if you can make a claim against the driver, I would expect them (or their insurance company) to cover the cost of those expenses.

DaveyDave · 30-07-2014 7:48pm

I don't know what the charge is for, they just say it's an "average daily cost" for road traffic accidents. Which makes sense if there was charges applied to ALL types of accidents. There isn't an "injured at work" fee though. It's just for road accidents and isn't fair. €346 is more than I earn in a week and I'm already going to be getting a debt collectors letter for not paying the €100 within 7 days. Even if the other party is paying for it, I have to pay it up front or else they'll start threatening me more.

I wouldn't imagine it's a callout charge as I wasn't charged for an ambulance 2 months ago when I was brought in after being severely dehydrated whole cycling.

I was just inquiring about the charge disappearing like the hospital woman supposedly said. So it seems as though I have to pay it whether I'm claiming through insurance or not but I don't have that kind of cash so they won't be getting it until I get money from the accident.

d9oiu2wk07blr5 · 30-07-2014 7:58pm

DaveyDave wrote: »

I don't know what the charge is for, they just say it's an "average daily cost" for road traffic accidents. Which makes sense if there was charges applied to ALL types of accidents. There isn't an "injured at work" fee though. It's just for road accidents and isn't fair. €346 is more than I earn in a week and I'm already going to be getting a debt collectors letter for not paying the €100 within 7 days. Even if the other party is paying for it, I have to pay it up front or else they'll start threatening me more.

I wouldn't imagine it's a callout charge as I wasn't charged for an ambulance 2 months ago when I was brought in after being severely dehydrated whole cycling.

I was just inquiring about the charge disappearing like the hospital woman supposedly said. So it seems as though I have to pay it whether I'm claiming through insurance or not but I don't have that kind of cash so they won't be getting it until I get money from the accident.

It's a classic example where the State/hospitals have no problem cashing in on the compo culture.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1 · 30-07-2014 8:16pm

Paloma Angry Equalizer wrote: »

It's a classic example where the State/hospitals have no problem cashing in on the compo culture.

More a case of quite rightly trying to recoup some of the expense if a party is liable for the callout. HSE have been critised for not doing so for many years and when they do they are still criticised.
It's like employers no longer paying wages for staff injured during football matches, as their player insurance should contribute.

thebullkf · 30-07-2014 8:31pm

DaveyDave wrote: »

Hey guys,

I was hit by a car cycling to work on Friday, brought to A&E in an ambulance, xray on the knee and ankle and all is well, just soft tissue damage and a week on crutches.

I got my bill today, the expected €100 A&E charge along with a ridiculous €346 Road Traffic Accident Charge.

I'm waiting for the Garda to contact me back after I said he could forward my details onto the driver. I'm guessing he'd want to deal with it personally but just in case he doesn't I need to get insurance details off the Gardai. I'll call later to see what's up.

In the mean time, my mam called the hospital about the charge and she was told the charge only applies if you're making a claim. That doesn't make sense to me. I'm expecting to have to pay this fee no matter if the drive gives me cash or it's the insurance company.

Anyone know what the story is with this ridiculous charge? It's bad enough I was hit by a car, learning that there's a daily charge of €346 for being a VICTIM is an absolute joke.

I doubt the driver has over €700 for damage to my bike, loss of wages and the medical bills so I most likely will be making a claim.

wow! what happened in the accident? Who was at fault?

davo10 · 30-07-2014 8:33pm

Paloma Angry Equalizer wrote: »

It's a classic example where the State/hospitals have no problem cashing in on the compo culture.

I think it's more a case of hospitals trying to recover expenses on behalf of the tax payer.

d9oiu2wk07blr5 · 30-07-2014 8:50pm

davo10 wrote: »

I think it's more a case of hospitals trying to recover expenses on behalf of the tax payer.

It's the State who introduced the Act, and they're assuming that the person behind the mechanically propelled vehicle is negligent, even though the driver hasn't been convicted of anything at the time that they're levying the charge. In attempting to justify the charge, Barry Desmond who was the then MoH stated that the reason for applying the charge in advance, is so the charge can be included in the statement of claim for compensation. Have a look at the last para.

The provisions which I have now brought before the House provide specific authority to enable health boards to reintroduce charges for hospital services provided — and I would stress “provided”— for persons who receive damages for injuries received in a road traffic accident. Such charges must be raised in advance so that they can form part of the claim for compensation before the courts. The case and amount of damages will be decided by the courts. If successful — and I stress that phrase also — the charges will be payable out of the compensation awarded. If unsuccessful, the charges will not be payable.

I have also made specific provision in the Bill for the waiving of the whole or part of the charges in cases where the compensation payable to the injured party has been reduced by the courts by reason of contributory negligence by such person or where the amount of damages is insufficient to meet the charges. This will protect the injured person from any hardship which might arise in meeting the charges.

In addition, the charges will not be legally recoverable by the health board until compensation has been paid, thus ensuring that the accident victim will not have to meet any costs until his claim for damages has been settled.

http://debates.oireachtas.ie/seanad/1986/04/23/00006.asp

Edit: the RTA occurred when the OP was travelling in to work, it's regarded as an occupational injury. If they had to take time off work because of their injuries, they can make a claim for occupational injury benefit, and if they've incurred medical costs (A&E, prescription charges etc), they can claim a refund of those costs under the medical care scheme.

http://www.welfare.ie/en/Pages/Occupational-Injuries-Benefit---Injury-Benefit.aspx

http://www.welfare.ie/en/Pages/Occupational-Injuries-Benefit---Medical-Care-under-the-Occup.aspx

davo10 · 30-07-2014 8:58pm

Paloma Angry Equalizer wrote: »

It's the State who introduced the Act, and they're assuming that the person behind the mechanically propelled vehicle is negligent, even though the driver hasn't been convicted of anything at the time that they're levying the charge. In attempting to justify the charge, Barry Desmond who was the then MoH stated that the reason for applying the charge in advance, is so the charge can be included in the statement of claim for compensation. Have a look at the last para.

http://debates.oireachtas.ie/seanad/1986/04/23/00006.asp

I suppose we should be glad that the mechanism is there to recover the costs from the party responsible for the charge, it's just a shame the OP has to pay and then recover the costs. Hopefully whoever is at fault in this case ultimately foots the bill.

d9oiu2wk07blr5 · 30-07-2014 9:22pm

davo10 wrote: »

I suppose we should be glad that the mechanism is there to recover the costs from the party responsible for the charge, it's just a shame the OP has to pay and then recover the costs. Hopefully whoever is at fault in this case ultimately foots the bill.

According to Barry Desmond, the OP shouldn't have to fork out for the charge until the case is settled, and the irony is that even if they do opt to pay the A&E charge, they can seek a refund under the occupational injuries medical care scheme.

davo10 · 30-07-2014 10:04pm

Paloma Angry Equalizer wrote: »

According to Barry Desmond, the OP shouldn't have to fork out for the charge until the case is settled, and the irony is that even if they do opt to pay the A&E charge, they can seek a refund under the occupational injuries medical care scheme.

In theory that sounds great, in reality it's fee per item, ie you use it, you pay for it so the user gets charged.

DaveyDave · 31-07-2014 12:52am

Luckily I'm only out of work for 7 days but unfortunately I cannot avail of the scheme covering medical expenses as it's for injuries exceeding 7 days.

As far as the RTA Charge goes, they're not getting it anytime soon because I've yet to hear back from the Gardai or the driver, so if I had the money I couldn't even pay it if I wanted to. I'll pay the hospital bill when I'm paid in less than two weeks so at least that will shut them up about debt collectors. I'm hoping they won't hound me for the RTA charge because I cannot act on it immediately and the letter also states to do it at my own convenience. My next course of action is getting a statement from the Gardai then contacting the driver and arranging payment. I'd imagine he'd want to settle in person, but seeing as how the fees have double due to the RTA, he will most likely want to go through insurance and considering his car is worth less than my bike, I doubt he would have €740 cash to spare. Who does these days?

As for who was at fault, I asked the Garda on the phone and he said "driver said XYZ, is this true?" And i said yes, so I essentially answered my own question. Basically, the driver went up a taxi rank and pulled in at a right hand turn, just before a pedestrian crossing. As he was stopped to let someone out, I went in front of him to go up the pedestrian crossing but went wide in the turn to be more in front than at the side. He wasn't moving as I approached, but when I was on the crossing just before being in front of the car he pulled out and hit me as I was directly in front of him.

I just remembered hearing the engine accelerating from when I was hit to the moment I was falling to the ground. I genuinely thought he was going to run me over. Not to make it sound like a disaster, but I was genuinely surprised at how long it took him to stop from such a slow speed. He had hit me, I fell onto the bonnet a little bit, the car pushed myself and my bike over then I fell off and as I was falling he was still accelerating. Maybe it's just that cycling keeps me on my toes with reactions but I can't count how many times I need to quickly tap the brakes to avoid collisions of people not looking, so what stopped him from doing the same?

Hopefully it gets sorted out quickly. I'm going to calculate my wages when I'm in work on Friday to see if I can even afford the RTA charge.

davo10 · 31-07-2014 6:36am

This might be a silly question, but if you were cycling on the left side of the road and you wanted to go up on the path on the left, why did you cross to the right hand side in front of cars at a corner, and then cross at the zebra crossing to go up on the foot path on the left side you were already on?

delahuntv · 31-07-2014 8:41am

I don;t see the issue anywhere here.

Cyclist has accident, it looks like it was the car driver's responsibility, so the OP simply claims from the driver or the driver's insurance the following

RTA charges
Hospital charges
Damage to bike
any ongoing medical expenses
any loss of earnings.

Quite simple and no need to get all worried about rta charges or anything.

This si what insurance is for

Tow · 31-07-2014 2:11pm

delahuntv wrote: »

it looks like it was the car driver's responsibility

Have you looked at the OPs map. If the blue line is him/her, it looks as if they crossed in front of the car on the pedestrian crossing while still on the bike...

The area looks like private property and there is a big 'No entry' painted at the start of the road. The car was in the 'Taxi Lane' and the OP overtook the car and crossed in front of it at the pedestrian crossing, after traveling along the 'Loading Only Lane'.

delahuntv · 31-07-2014 3:15pm

Tow wrote: »

Have you looked at the OPs map. If the blue line is him/her, it looks as if they crossed in front of the car on the pedestrian crossing while still on the bike...

The area looks like private property and there is a big 'No entry' painted at the start of the road. The car was in the 'Taxi Lane' and the OP overtook the car and crossed in front of it at the pedestrian crossing, after traveling along the 'Loading Only Lane'.

private property makes no odds - it's still public space. If you drive dangerously in a public space whether privately owned or not, you still can be charged with most normal motoring offences.

If the cyclist was in front of the car, then the car is at fault as it is for the car driver to be vigilant and be going at such a speed and driving in such a manner that he would be able to stop in an emergency. - In this case the driver seems to have been driving without due care or consideration.

To the OP - don't get worried at all about this, but possibly do get advice to ensure you are compensated for any losses you incur. That's what insurance is for (its not though for "making a profit" on an incident") so as I said above, you calculate ALL lost earnings and costs associated with this and that's what you are rightfully due. - If you exaggerate a claim and try to "make a profit", the entire claim can be refused - though by the sounds of it you come across as very honest .

DaveyDave · 31-07-2014 3:16pm

Tow wrote: »

Have you looked at the OPs map. If the blue line is him/her, it looks as if they crossed in front of the car on the pedestrian crossing while still on the bike...

The area looks like private property and there is a big 'No entry' painted at the start of the road. The car was in the 'Taxi Lane' and the OP overtook the car and crossed in front of it at the pedestrian crossing, after traveling along the 'Loading Only Lane'.

There's barriers along the path except there's a break where the pedestrian crossing is, you can see the black line in the picture. As the car was Stopped there was no fault in my action of proceeding in front of him. If I was walking on the pedestrian crossing he still would hit me. If he was starting from a stop his speed was slow enough to stop without hitting me but he didn't stop accelerating until I was falling to the ground so there was a serious delay in his reaction. Further to the location of the crash bring a loading bay etc, there's a bike rack on the south side of that pedestrian crossing, so there's no argument of bikes not being there and my speed wasn't an issue as there is another barrier in front of the pedestrian crossing where I was heading so I have to approach slowly.

delahuntv wrote: »

private property makes no odds - it's still public space. If you drive dangerously in a public space whether privately owned or not, you still can be charged with most normal motoring offences.

If the cyclist was in front of the car, then the car is at fault as it is for the car driver to be vigilant and be going at such a speed and driving in such a manner that he would be able to stop in an emergency. - In this case the driver seems to have been driving without due care or consideration.

To the OP - don't get worried at all about this, but possibly do get advice to ensure you are compensated for any losses you incur. That's what insurance is for (its not though for "making a profit" on an incident") so as I said above, you calculate ALL lost earnings and costs associated with this and that's what you are rightfully due. - If you exaggerate a claim and try to "make a profit", the entire claim can be refused - though by the sounds of it you come across as very honest .

I'm just looking for the costs I'm not looking for any extra payments.That's it. I have my letter from the hospital stating my injury and to take time to rest, two medical bills, a letter from my supervisor stating the days I was out and the hours in total and i also have my bike repair fee from the shop. Everything is documented, all fees and charges are on paper. I'm simply trying to get the fees paid for as the result of the accident. I'm not trying to get anything extra.

Th3B1tcH · 04-08-2014 1:10am

OP Its not a new thing I got bill after hit by a car before round 15years ago(was only a tap) the bill when sent out actully said no charge if I wasnt making a claim
Suggest you contact hospital billing department and let them know if making claim or not they will sort a payment plan if needed
I didnt make a claim and bill went away

Magenta · 06-08-2014 11:03am

DaveyDave wrote: »

Hey guys,

In the mean time, my mam called the hospital about the charge and she was told the charge only applies if you're making a claim. That doesn't make sense to me.

Your mam possibly got her wires crossed. Why do you need your mam to make phone calls for you anyway? You should be big enough to do that yourself. Call the hospital yourself and find out first-hand rather than relying on what your mother relays.

Muahahaha · 07-08-2014 5:43pm

Stheno wrote: »

Seems pretty standard across the A&E and was introduced as part of the 1986 Health Act

From St. James website:

Wow never knew it cost €346 for an ambulance call out. I wonder what happens when the perpetrator is no where to be found ? I crashed my motorbike last year, it was either that or hit a 12 year old girl full on, she stepped onto the road with her head buried in the mobile phone texting away. She legged it as I was laying on the road and other people had called an ambulance. I got up and despite a bit of pain knew nothing was wrong so drove on. If I had of waiting on the ambulance that I didn't call I presume I would have been liable for the charge?

Fred Swanson · 08-08-2014 11:36am

This post has been deleted.

delahuntv · 08-08-2014 1:00pm

Magenta wrote: »

Your mam possibly got her wires crossed. Why do you need your mam to make phone calls for you anyway? You should be big enough to do that yourself. Call the hospital yourself and find out first-hand rather than relying on what your mother relays.

she was right.

The charges were introduced so that hospitals can add in their costs to insurance claims.

It would be rare that a road traffic accident that requires ambulance and hospital care would not result in a claim on insurance and as such this charge is levied to ensure part of the ambulance and hospital costs are covered.

After all, the accident was caused by someone and someone is at fault and if that person did not make that fault the accident would not have happened.

So why should the general taxpayer pay for something that should have been avoidable? Hospitals can use a waiver if in the very unlikely event an insurance claim is not made.

But definitely i would agree with this charge as it means the insurance of the person who was at fault pays ALL charges / losses and not the state.

Red Nissan · 08-08-2014 1:10pm

DaveyDave wrote: »

I wouldn't imagine it's a callout charge as I wasn't charged for an ambulance 2 months ago when I was brought in after being severely dehydrated whole cycling.

In another thread I said there were charges for the ambulance and fire attendance at accidents.

I was firmly told that there was no fee for the ambulance and can never be one.

But if one calls it something different, then that's OK.

Some people do get a charge which can only be an ambulance charge by another name, others just get the €750 maximum charge for a public patient in one all encompassing fee.

Red Nissan · 08-08-2014 1:13pm

Muahahaha wrote: »

Wow never knew it cost €346 for an ambulance call out.

So now you know. But technically, it can't be called an ambulance call out, but it is in reality.

€400 for the fire service domestic.

A&E Road Traffic Accident Charge?

Comments