Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

What does this mean?

  • 25-07-2016 2:59pm
    #1
    Owryan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,024 ✭✭✭


    With reference to this case and the insurance company seeking to pull its cover: http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/0725/804657-peter-van-greene/

    What does it mean for the hospital? Would this mean that Aut Even Hospital is no longer insured or is that the insurers are afraid of a big pay out because of the 5 civil actions?


Comments

  • #2
    MarkAnthony
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,934 ✭✭✭MarkAnthony


    It means that any further actions would have to be borne by the hospital directly. I'm assuming this is malpractice insurance.


  • #3
    Pro Hoc Vice
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,087 ✭✭✭Pro Hoc Vice


    MarkAnthony wrote: »
    It means that any further actions would have to be borne by the hospital directly. I'm assuming this is malpractice insurance.

    If it was only future cases why are solicitors coming off record, can only be on record for live cases.


  • #4
    MarkAnthony
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,934 ✭✭✭MarkAnthony


    Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »
    If it was only future cases why are solicitors coming off record, can only be on record for live cases.

    The current cases are ongoing. I assume the insurance company have decided something is up and they're not going to continue to insure. While I'm sure other scenarios are possible that seemed most likely to me.


  • #5
    Pro Hoc Vice
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,087 ✭✭✭Pro Hoc Vice


    MarkAnthony wrote: »
    The current cases are ongoing. I assume the insurance company have decided something is up and they're not going to continue to insure. While I'm sure other scenarios are possible that seemed most likely to me.

    No need to come off record of that the case just refuse to indemnify for future cases.


  • #6
    MarkAnthony
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,934 ✭✭✭MarkAnthony


    Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »
    No need to come off record of that the case just refuse to indemnify for future cases.

    Maybe something else is afoot.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    Owryan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,024 ✭✭✭Owryan


    Cheers folks, at first I was just wondering if it meant the hospital is without insurance but from reading up on the case it seems the doctor in question and the hospital are facing several more civil actions.

    So I take it from what you are saying that the insurers would be liable for the cases already before the courts but by seeking to go off record, if any new cases are filed then they will not be involved?


  • #8
    MarkAnthony
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,934 ✭✭✭MarkAnthony


    Owryan wrote: »
    Cheers folks, at first I was just wondering if it meant the hospital is without insurance but from reading up on the case it seems the doctor in question and the hospital are facing several more civil actions.

    So I take it from what you are saying that the insurers would be liable for the cases already before the courts but by seeking to go off record, if any new cases are filed then they will not be involved?

    I am and I think PHV is saying they are not by reference to the solicitors going off record (probably because they won't be paid). To be fair Pro Hoc has more experience of this than I do but either scenario is possible, the solicitors might be coming off record on the other cases for other reasons - it's probably unlikely though.


  • #9
    Pro Hoc Vice
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,087 ✭✭✭Pro Hoc Vice


    Owryan wrote: »
    Cheers folks, at first I was just wondering if it meant the hospital is without insurance but from reading up on the case it seems the doctor in question and the hospital are facing several more civil actions.

    So I take it from what you are saying that the insurers would be liable for the cases already before the courts but by seeking to go off record, if any new cases are filed then they will not be involved?

    A solicitor can only come off record in a case if not getting proper instructions or is not being paid or a conflict has arisen. I would take it is either of the last two.

    For future cases a insurance company just refuses indemnity and its solicitors do not come on record. Also if a solicitor has been writing to a plaintiff but have not come on record by entering an appearance they would just write and clearly say they have no instructions to accept service.


  • #10
    davo10
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,926 ✭✭✭davo10


    Doctors are legally required to have indemnity insurance in order to practice. An insurer can remove indemnity to try and limit their future exposure. Effectively this ends the career of the practitioner as there are only a couple of medical insurers and if one refuses cover, they all refuse.

    Solicitors acting for Doctors in malpractice cases are hired by the indemnity company. This can lead to conflict because the Doctor (rightly or wrongly) can come to believe that the solicitor is more interested in limiting the costs to the insurer than protecting the Dr's good name. When solicitors jump ship it a case like this, it is probably due to the Dr not co-operating with his legal team or that he is unwilling to accept the legal advice being given. Some Dr's have God complexes, they see themselves as having done no wrong even when the evidence to the contrary is mounting, their good name and ability to practice is everything.


  • #11
    Pat Mustard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,554 ✭✭✭Pat Mustard


    Mod:

    Thread reopened following moderator review.

    This discussion may go ahead but there is to be absolutely no speculation as to reasons for solicitors coming off record or for refusal of indemnity.


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    Marcusm
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,632 ✭✭✭✭Marcusm


    MPS is not an insurance company but a membership based society which provides indemnity cover to its members subject to the agreement of its internal panel. I think the "cover" is essentially of value to the practitioner, ie a patient can't successfully sue the MPS but on being sued the doctor can look to the MPS for indemnity.


  • #13
    Thoie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,344 ✭✭✭Thoie


    This article from last year (second last paragraph) says that the doctor had already stopped practicing, so there's no reason why insurance would still cover him.

    http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/peter-van-geene-a-lengthy-inquiry-with-many-strange-moments-1.2400486


  • #14
    Pro Hoc Vice
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,087 ✭✭✭Pro Hoc Vice


    Thoie wrote: »
    This article from last year (second last paragraph) says that the doctor had already stopped practicing, so there's no reason why insurance would still cover him.

    http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/peter-van-geene-a-lengthy-inquiry-with-many-strange-moments-1.2400486

    Run off cover. A professional can be sued for 6 years and the cover is usually that in effect in year of claim not event.


  • #15
    L1011
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 71,184 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Nearly all medical protection insurance specifically covers you after retirement for that purpose - either through a reduced premium or included in your working-era premia if you stick with the one insurer for prolonged periods.


Advertisement