Has anyone ever been prosecuted for personal injury's Fraud?

drunkmonkey

Any cases of someone making a false claim and getting in trouble for it?
Is it a criminal or civil matter?

Hal3000

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Any cases of someone making a false claim and getting in trouble for it?
Is it a criminal or civil matter?

Doubt it. We don't do accountability here and anyone who has would have got a harsh suspended sentence.

osarusan

Raymond Smith, 3-year suspended sentence in 2013, was the first I believe.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/cage-fighter-avoids-jail-for-falsely-claiming-he-had-back-injury-following-crash-29830362.html

Pkiernan

The link between politicians, judges, barristers and solicitors here is pretty sickening.

Samuel T. Cogley

Recent arrest, possibly arrests for contravention of the Civil Liabilities Act (IIRC) by Gardaí - crash for cash scam.

Sonny noggs

I guess the next question is whether anyone in the legal profession has ever been censured for bringing obviously fraudulent claims to court.

Samuel T. Cogley

Sonny noggs wrote: »

I guess the next question is whether anyone in the legal profession has ever been censured for bringing obviously fraudulent claims to court.

So on the one hand the legal profession is corrupt and on the other we want them deciding which cases get brought to court.

I'm not sure you've thought this through.

Eggs For Dinner

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

So on the one hand the legal profession is corrupt and on the other we want them deciding which cases get brought to court.

I'm not sure you've thought this through.

I think the point being made was about the enthusiastic support some solicitors provide for obviously fraudulent or exaggerated claims

Samuel T. Cogley

Eggs For Dinner wrote: »

I think the point being made was about the enthusiastic support some solicitors provide for obviously fraudulent or exaggerated claims

How is the solicitor meant to know if the case is fraudulent or exaggerated? Solicitors, barristers and Judges deal in facts and evidence not the feeling that Seamus is a bit of a knacker.

Personally and although this is somewhat ironic given it's probably a fear of being sued, I blame Doctors for their seemingly never failing diagnosis of soft tissue injuries and the government for not legislating a bar on certain whiplash claims. Personally I think there is a public policy argument to be made that a small number of genuinely injured parties would be denied relief vs. a huge number of bogus claims.

But I reiterate that unless a solicitor is also a Consultant on the side how are they meant to know which injuries are genuine and which aren't?

angel eyes 2012

The judges can start by awarding costs against every plaintiff that has their case thrown out instead of the defence nearly always having to pay whether they win the case or not.

The case taken by a certain fg TD has many similarities with the aforementioned case, blatent fraud and deceit but I doubt she will be treated the same when and if the matter comes to court.

Sonny noggs

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

So on the one hand the legal profession is corrupt and on the other we want them deciding which cases get brought to court.

I'm not sure you've thought this through.

Where did I say the legal profession was corrupt?

Certain members of the profession clearly are, most are not.

I’m not sure you thought your response through.

A solicitor / barrister chooses the cases they take, the same applies in all businesses assuming it isn’t based on blatant discrimination.

Solicitor A refuses to take the case (e.g. because he strongly suspects it is fraudulent and / or the claimant has a history ...) then the person tries Solicitor B, C etc.

You prefer the opposite where all the dross gets to courts, cloggs of schedules and wastes time and money, keeps insurance high, keeps the legal profession busy... I wonder why. Vested interest much?

Samuel T. Cogley

angel eyes 2012 wrote: »

The judges can start by awarding costs against every plaintiff that has their case thrown instead of the defence nearly always having to pay whether they win the case or not.

The case taken by a certain fg minister has many similarities with the aforementioned case, blatent fraud and deceit but I doubt she will be treated the same when and if the matter comes to court.

What data are you basing your assertion that costs are not awarded against unsuccessful plaintiffs as a matter of course. I'm not disagreeing with you but I would like to see something to back up your claim.

NIMAN

Rarely I'd say.

That chancer who fell off the swing obviously lied to her solicitor, or else conspired with them, to lie.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/td-bailey-ran-10km-race-three-weeks-after-swing-fall-38146778.html

She's claiming she couldn't run for 3 months yet ran a 10k three weeks after the fall.

I hope she's thrown out of court. Despicable.

angel eyes 2012

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

What data are you basing your assertion that costs are not awarded against unsuccessful plaintiffs as a matter of course. I'm not disagreeing with you but I would like to see something to back up your claim.

There are no statistics, I've been in the civil courts and seen it time and time again.

Samuel T. Cogley

Sonny noggs wrote: »

Where did I say the legal profession was corrupt?

Someone else did I was referring in general terms although you do seem to now be implying it yourself.

Sonny noggs wrote: »

Certain members of the profession clearly are, most are not.

I’m not sure you thought your response through.

A solicitor / barrister chooses the cases they take, the same applies in all businesses assuming it isn’t based on blatant discrimination.

Solicitor A refuses to take the case (e.g. because he strongly suspects it is fraudulent and / or the claimant has a history ...) then the person tries Solicitor B, C etc.

You prefer the opposite where all the dross gets to courts, cloggs of schedules and wastes time and money, keeps insurance high, keeps the legal profession busy... I wonder why. Vested interest much?

The dross as you put it could very well be a genuine claim. Again I ask when confronted with a Doctor's and Engineer's report stating that the case is genuine how is a solicitor meant to know which cases are actually fraudulent?

Yes my vested interest as a civil servant :rolleyes:

Samuel T. Cogley

angel eyes 2012 wrote: »

There are no statistics, I've been in the civil courts and seen it time and time again.

How many times over what period? I've seen many reports of costs being awarded against plaintiffs.

angel eyes 2012

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

How many times over what period? I've seen many reports of costs being awarded against plaintiffs.

Over a four year period and it rarely occured that costs were awarded against plaintiffs, this was the Dublin Civil Courts, perhaps it is different in other Districts/Circuits.

Sonny noggs

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Someone else did I was referring in general terms although you do seem to now be implying it yourself.





The dross as you put it could very well be a genuine claim. Again I ask when confronted with a Doctor's and Engineer's report stating that the case is genuine how is a solicitor meant to know which cases are actually fraudulent?


Yes my vested interest as a civil servant :rolleyes:

Maybe they should do a little investigation like the insurers and the media have started doing. Take this Maria Bailey example, the Independent reports today that she did a 10k run 3 weeks later (at a runners pace based on the time quoted) despite claiming she could no longer run. She was enjoying herself at Longitude a few weeks later etc.

Some simple checks would weed out the most obvious fraudulent cases.

Ambulance chaser jokes around the legal profession didn’t originate from thin air.

Sonny noggs

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

How many times over what period? I've seen many reports of costs being awarded against plaintiffs.

Care to share the data please? Given that you requested the data to prove the opposite claim earlier in the thread...

Samuel T. Cogley

Sonny noggs wrote: »

Maybe they should do a little investigation like the insurers and the media have started doing. Take this Maria Bailey example, the Independent reports today that she did a 10k run 3 weeks later (at a runners pace based on the time quoted) despite claiming she could no longer run. She was enjoying herself at Longitude a few weeks later etc.

Some simple checks would weed out the most obvious fraudulent cases.

Ambulance chaser jokes around the legal profession didn’t originate from thin air.

Maybe that should be left to the defence in an adversarial system. I've also heard it reported that in fact she was able to run 30K and was reduced to only being able to run 10K due to her injuries. I wonder what the doctor's reports says? Again why should the legal profession be ignoring other professions in their areas of expertise?

I'm not denying the stupidity of a grown woman suing for falling off a swing, but that does not mean she's not mean she should be denied access to the courts. Assuming her claim does fail then I also agree costs should be awarded against her.

Samuel T. Cogley

Sonny noggs wrote: »

Care to share the data please? Given that you requested the data to prove the opposite claim earlier in the thread...

It's anecdotal as is the previous posters information.

Sonny noggs

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Maybe that should be left to the defence in an adversarial system. I've also heard it reported that in fact she was able to run 30K and was reduced to only being able to run 10K due to her injuries. I wonder what the doctor's reports says? Again why should the legal profession be ignoring other professions in their areas of expertise?

I'm not denying the stupidity of a grown woman suing for falling off a swing, but that does not mean she's not mean she should be denied access to the courts. Assuming her claim does fail then I also agree costs should be awarded against her.

Okay, what about this example:

https://touch.boards.ie/thread/2057980891/

“Judge Groarke said Ms Contaragui was “prone to misdescription, exaggeration, misrepresentation, apparent falsehood and a lack of accuracy about injuries, previous medical history and her attendances with doctors”.”

So the judge threw the case out, right?

Think again.

“He believed her complaint of injury to her neck and lower back was ‘probably correct’ and that he would award her general damages of €10,000 jointly and severally against the three defendants Mr Contaragiu and Mr and Ms Orosanu.”

Do you honestly believe that the solicitor representing her believed her story? Could he have been that naive?

Eggs For Dinner

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

How many times over what period? I've seen many reports of costs being awarded against plaintiffs.

Having costs awarded against a plaintiff is totally different to actually seeing the colour of their money. A defendant needs to look carefully at at the means of a claimant to see how far they will take it. To achieve a win with costs can come at a higher price than losing early on. Hence the fact so many claims are paid for nuisance value.

Samuel T. Cogley

Sonny noggs wrote: »

Okay, what about this example:

https://touch.boards.ie/thread/2057980891/

“Judge Groarke said Ms Contaragui was “prone to misdescription, exaggeration, misrepresentation, apparent falsehood and a lack of accuracy about injuries, previous medical history and her attendances with doctors”.”

So the judge threw the case out, right?

Think again.

“He believed her complaint of injury to her neck and lower back was ‘probably correct’ and that he would award her general damages of €10,000 jointly and severally against the three defendants Mr Contaragiu and Mr and Ms Orosanu.”

Do you honestly believe that the solicitor representing her believed her story? Could he have been that naive?

Dead link in the other thread.



Probability is the standard in civil cases.

Samuel T. Cogley

Eggs For Dinner wrote: »

Having costs awarded against a plaintiff is totally different to actually seeing the colour of their money. A defendant needs to look carefully at at the means of a claimant to see how far they will take it. To achieve a win with costs can come at a higher price than losing early on. Hence the fact so many claims are paid for nuisance value.

No disagreement there that the costs system need an overhaul if it's to be an effective deterrent against spurious claims. My contention is that professional advocates should not be the ones deciding whose case is worthy of it's day in court.


Furthermore the level of awards is completely ridiculous at this stage. Wasn't there a case recently where 1cm scar garnered €30,000?

Blueshoe

I know someone who got away with a fake back injury claim. Received a chunk above 200k. Was in Canada and once the claim went through headed back to Ireland. Nothing wrong with him. Even plays a bit of football now at home

hullaballoo

€200k? Something not right there. Did he manage to fake a broken back?

While whiplash claims might attract too much compensation in the eyes of the standard populist, they are not in the order of €200,000.

They are in the €12,000-20,000 range for the most part. Anything above that is very very exceptional and probably involves something more than typical whiplash injury.

Graham

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

professional advocates should not be the ones deciding whose case is worthy of it's day in court.

+1

I don't see how it could be any other way.

Does anyone really want solicitors pre-judging the outcome of a case to decide whether someone should be allowed access to the judicial system?

Blueshoe

hullaballoo wrote: »

€200k? Something not right there. Did he manage to fake a broken back?

While whiplash claims might attract too much compensation in the eyes of the standard populist, they are not in the order of €200,000.

They are in the €12,000-20,000 range for the most part. Anything above that is very very exceptional and probably involves something more than typical whiplash injury.

In Canada. Loss of earnings and future loss of earnings. Mental health problems too and future medication and therapy costs. I saw the approved claim statement from his solicitor myself

tayto lover

Anyone know any hotels with swings?
Need a wee break.

CardinalJ

Graham wrote:

Does anyone really want solicitors pre-judging the outcome of a case to decide whether someone should be allowed access to the judicial system?

I work in an insurer and Ive had plenty of Solicitors ring me off the record early in a claim and ask if we have 'concerns' about certain accidents or crashes. Many of them then walk away. They know from the off their Client is full of it.

On the other hand, ive had plenty of Solicitors where we've given them the chance to walk away via an off the record discussion and they openly say that we wont get our costs back off a claimant once they lose and push for a nuisance offer. They only care about fees, not justice.

The notion that a Solicitor can't judge a fraudulant claimant based on suspicious single vehicle accidents or odd accident circumstances is nonsense.

Graham

Even if that is the case, it probably shouldn't be.

Unless the client gives a very clear indication they're going to chance a fraudulent claim, the disincentive to such claims should be prosecution for making those claims.

CardinalJ

Graham wrote:

Unless the client gives a very clear indication they're going to chance a fraudulent claim, the disincentive to such claims should be prosecution for making those claims.

It doesnt happen on the real world, unfortunately.

Graham

according to the other posters, neither does the solicitor pre-filtering.

I don't think anyone (so far) has disagreed that there's a problem with fraudulent claims. How to prevent them is the issue.

McCrack

As a solr it's very difficult to ascertain that a case could be fraudulent or exaggerated injury when a client first presents in your office

You take a client at face value and ultimately its up to the court to decide matters if there is a dispute on liability and or causation

tayto lover

McCrack wrote: »

As a solr it's very difficult to ascertain that a case could be fraudulent or exaggerated injury when a client first presents in your office

You take a client at face value and ultimately its up to the court to decide matters if there is a dispute on liability and or causation

What about when members of the same “ethnic” community keep turning up?
Do you consider them to be just very unlucky?

McCrack

tayto lover wrote: »

What about when members of the same “ethnic” community keep turning up?
Do you consider them to be just very unlucky?

Perhaps or perhaps not

You take instructions, ascertain liability, seek a medical and submit the claim. If it can be shown or is discovered that the plaintiff is fraudulent or exaggerated injuries then the case will be withdrawn or struck out. Its not the solrs role to determine theses matters. It's the courts.

Graham

tayto lover wrote: »

What about when members of the same “ethnic” community keep turning up?
Do you consider them to be just very unlucky?

Is that really where you think the country should be heading? Access to the Courts based on ethnicity?

Would we not be better looking at prosecutions/penalties/costs being recovered for fraudulent claims?

Nikki Sixx

hullaballoo wrote: »

€200k? Something not right there. Did he manage to fake a broken back?

While whiplash claims might attract too much compensation in the eyes of the standard populist, they are not in the order of €200,000.

They are in the €12,000-20,000 range for the most part. Anything above that is very very exceptional and probably involves something more than typical whiplash injury.

He said it happened in Canada. I’d imagine it’s similar to America. America is the home of injury claims, so I’d say that’s why the compensation was huge.

CardinalJ

Graham wrote:

according to the other posters, neither does the solicitor pre-filtering.

Im talking very very small % of claims.

Im not for a moment suggesting its a Solicitors job to filter or decide who gets to claim, im just saying that several Solicitors have known from the get go that their client isnt honest.

CardinalJ

tayto lover wrote:

What about when members of the same “ethnic†community keep turning up? Do you consider them to be just very unlucky?

Travelers get negative press as its easier to blame someone else instead of looking at your own 'community'.

A certain surname might jump out at you but there are far more 'dodgy' claims from settled individuals than others.

tayto lover

Graham wrote: »

Is that really where you think the country should be heading? Access to the Courts based on ethnicity?

Would we not be better looking at prosecutions/penalties/costs being recovered for fraudulent claims?

No but the Travellers, as highlighted on threads here and elsewhere, have serious reputations for faking accidents and even coming into this country from England to do so.
I’d even say that the percentage of fake claims by them dwarf those from any similar percentage number of the settled community anywhere in the country.

Eggs For Dinner

Fraudulent and exaggerated claims are made by every class, creed, colour and nationality. I'm no fan of our mobile brethren, but the Mrs Bucket group are as bad from my experience