€22.5m settlement for boy with brain damage

beerguts

This isn't going to be a popular opinion but I feel this is a very excessive settlement award. The boy was not diagnosed with meningitis after birth and now has brain damage due to the medical negligence.I have no issue with compensation to cover the care for the lad over the course of his life but that could never amount to over €22 million euro.

Is their any safeguards to the state in this award that if he was to die early in life that the sum remaining would be reclaimed by the state. I don't think the parents should be entitled to any large sum that remained in this senario.



https://www.rte.ie/news/courts/2020/0917/1165723-settlement/

NIMAN

I agree it seems a lot in comparison to other awards you hear mentioned, but it's hard to put a price on what it will cost to look after this child for the rest of his life.

I'm sure the judge considered all this in his award amount.

I'm sure the parents would hand the money back to have their child not brain damaged.

TheRiverman

I'm sure the Judge took into consideration the way the hospital put the parents through torture, by not admitting responsibility back in 2012. How many times have we seen this over the years ? Perhaps we would see smaller settlements if they admitted they were wrong from the start.Parents having the strees and sadness of a handicapped child as well as dealing with years of legally battling the hospital must be awful.

Augme

beerguts wrote: »

Is their any safeguards to the state in this award that if he was to die early in life that the sum remaining would be reclaimed by the state. I don't think the parents should be entitled to any large sum that remained in this senario.

Yea, because obviously if the kid dies early in life it will have been no fault of the HSE so the parents should be forced to give the money back as they haven't suffered at all in that scenario....

Geuze

Quick point - one reason for the high awards is very low interest rates.

A higher lump-sum must be awarded to meet annual payments into the future, if interest rates are lower.


The same challenge faces pension funds - very low long-term interest rates.

Geuze

Another point - given that social care is available from the HSE, financed by taxes, why the need for the award?

I think I know the answer, but would like it confirmed.


It is that Judges have agreed that private care is allowed in the award, so the award must be big enough to pay for private social care.

kowloon

beerguts wrote: »

Is their any safeguards to the state in this award that if he was to die early in life that the sum remaining would be reclaimed by the state. I don't think the parents should be entitled to any large sum that remained in this senario.

I'd pity the poor fecker tasked with turning up at the home of the grieving parents to reclaim that money.

kippy

Geuze wrote: »

Another point - given that social care is available from the HSE, financed by taxes, why the need for the award?

I think I know the answer, but would like it confirmed.


It is that Judges have agreed that private care is allowed in the award, so the award must be big enough to pay for private social care.

The child will have needs long after the parents have grown old and dies. This is not cheap.
Parents are in an awful situation and I don't think any amount of money can make that right.

Unicorn55

€22,000,000 / 80 years of his life / 8,760 hours in a year = €31/hour?

Not excessive at all if he will need round the clock care for the rest of his life.

Geuze

Surely the HSE will be paying for social care anyways?

kippy

Geuze wrote: »

Surely the HSE will be paying for social care anyways?

Hard to know how much they would cover. I don't have experience with that type of thing thankfully, but I suspect full time care in the individuals home isn't always by the HSE. And again things get more complicated as the years go on....
To be blunt about it, if you were in the parents shoes, would your experiences with the HSE to this point give you any confidence in their ability to mind you son for the rest of his days?

beerguts

Augme wrote: »

Yea, because obviously if the kid dies early in life it will have been no fault of the HSE so the parents should be forced to give the money back as they haven't suffered at all in that scenario....

I agree that the parents have suffered but would you be happy if the money was in a trust for the lads medical and emotional needs during his natural life and any funds remaining should be reimbursed to the state.

Airyfairy12

Regardless of settlements negligent doctors should be held accountable. I know mistakes happen and things can be missed but in circumstances like this it's just not good enough.

AllForIt

Unicorn55 wrote: »

€22,000,000 / 80 years of his life / 8,760 hours in a year = €31/hour?

Not excessive at all if he will need round the clock care for the rest of his life.

If the boy has brain damage surely there's no hope of him living anywhere near as long as 80 years.

I understand the lost term costs to care for someone but I still think 22.5 million is at least 50% more than it should be.

simongurnick

Depends what the settlement is for. Imagine it isnt simply for the cost of care. There is also pain and suffering and the amount also needs to provide accountability to the hospital.
Even if this child only lives until he is 30, the cost of care is astronomical. Two of my kids are medically fragile and needed round the clock medical supervision for about 7 years. I'm not in ireland but I know public wouldn't cover it all and a private agency will charge double the hourly rate for a home nurse to include all their admin costs and some profit. That doesn't even count the therapists (multiple) this kid will need and all the medical supplies and equipment.

Immortal Starlight

No amount of money will ever make up for the quality of life this little boy is missing out on. He deserves every single last cent.

lawrencesummers

Does that 22 million come out of the medical budget this year?

How many cut backs will there be this year because of that money not being available, or how much better a health system would it be with an additional 22 million. How many nurses and doctors does 22 million pay for?

How many settlements were made 8 years ago that reduced the ability of the HSE to be adequately staffed when that child was born?

The parents are entitled to an apology, the child is entitled to have his needs met because of that error.

There is barely a week that goes by Without hearing about someone getting a huge settlement from the HSE. Have we reached a situation yet where the annual claims equal the actual HSE budget? Somebody needs to look at the total amount of compensation the HSE has had to pay out and make those figures public.

it would get you to thinking how much better a system that would create situations like this less frequently if that money was actually spent within the system.

A vicious circle me thinks.


And special mention to the legal profession. Who no doubt took a massive chunk and made the parents wait 8 years for this. What a shower of parasites the legal profession are.

simongurnick

lawrencesummers wrote: »

Does that 22 million come out of the medical budget this year?

How many cut backs will there be this year because of that money not being available, or how much better a health system would it be with an additional 22 million. How many nurses and doctors does 22 million pay for?

How many settlements were made 8 years ago that reduced the ability of the HSE to be adequately staffed when that child was born?

The parents are entitled to an apology, the child is entitled to have his needs met because of that error.

There is barely a week that goes by Without hearing about someone getting a huge settlement from the HSE. Have we reached a situation yet where the annual claims equal the actual HSE budget? Somebody needs to look at the total amount of compensation the HSE has had to pay out.

it would get you to thinking how much better a system that would create situations like this less frequently if that money was actually spent within the system.

A vicious circle me thinks.


And special mention to the legal profession. Who no doubt took a massive chunk and made the parents wait 8 years for this. What a shower of parasites the legal profession are.

Settlement payments aren't coming from hospital budgets. They have insurance policies against this and very often the settlement isnt paid lump sum, but spread over years in installments

Strumms

beerguts wrote: »

This isn't going to be a popular opinion but I feel this is a very excessive settlement award. The boy was not diagnosed with meningitis after birth and now has brain damage due to the medical negligence.I have no issue with compensation to cover the care for the lad over the course of his life but that could never amount to over €22 million euro.

Is their any safeguards to the state in this award that if he was to die early in life that the sum remaining would be reclaimed by the state. I don't think the parents should be entitled to any large sum that remained in this senario.



https://www.rte.ie/news/courts/2020/0917/1165723-settlement/

He is not just entitled to care, he’s entitled to a life. That’s been taken away in a perfect context by the negligence of state employees / state health services. He won’t be able to work, so he should do without things like holidays, so he should do without say an adapted and accessible car to be driven in. Do without health for his entire life, because somebody or some people fell asleep at the wheel ?

22 million sounds a lot, but he’s starting in life, he’s not a 40 year old person who was misdiagnosed with something.... he’s at ‘day one’.

The money will be spent on a rolling basis to care, to provide, to help for all his life... yes with that amount it is going to ensure absolute comfort as well as help. Considering what and how he fell victim to a severe level of incompetence that will adversely affect his life, for life and in the manner which it will, I’m ok with the amount. It’s fair, it’s appropriate.

Just another fûck up from this absolutely absurd joke of a health service that if it spent less time patting itself on the back and singing self congratulatory hymns to anyone in earshot would come to the realization that a lot of Irish people are and have come to that when you scratch away the self congratulating, back patting, the PR spin nonsense regarding our health service it’s more an ill-heath service such is the endemic nature of incompetence from management down through to front line consultants.

s1ippy

AllForIt wrote: »

If the boy has brain damage surely there's no hope of him living anywhere near as long as 80 years.

That's absolutely not the case. People with brain injuries can enjoy the same longevity as anyone else.

They will have taken into account his family's income too and what the loss of earnings over the course of his career would potentially have been.

The money does go to the state in the event that he passes away, his family don't stand to profit at all. Consider that now, in spite of your perceived "win" they've achieved, the family are in a position where they will have to provide round the clock care and devote their entire existence to this child, forever. Imagine you can't do a single thing without wondering where your child is and if he's being looked after for the rest of your and his life, well into the stage of life when you'll need care yourself and beyond. And the hospital, not content to have negligently afflicted him in the first place, drag you away from caring for him in order to engage you in a painful legal battle against them where they claim you're lying about their misconduct.

Is this boy really a deserving target of your judgement. Would you want this for your family?? A nasty, jealous, petty thread.

kowloon wrote: »

I'd pity the poor fecker tasked with turning up at the home of the grieving parents to reclaim that money.

The state controls the money and the parents will have to apply through the ward of court system for it to be released. They get it back after they've already spent it on production of receipts. So they won't retain any in the event of their child's death. Not that any sum of money would even begin to make up for the absolute devastation you would feel every day when you look into the child's eyes and imagine what developmental level he'd be at now if he was like his peers.

Strumms

Correct, brain injuries don’t necessarily have to limit life expectancy. They certainly can and do limit the quality of the victims life.

- ability to earn / work

- ability to maintain and forge relationships / friendships

- ability to travel

- ability to have family

Lots more besides... he’ll need significant care, help. The state only provide so much.

Peregrinus

There will have been actuarial calculations that take account of the boy's life expectancy, care needs, entitlement to care from the HSE, etc.

But bear in mind that we are not just looking at the cost of care. The boy will suffer total loss of earnings for the whole of (what would have been) his working life - earnings that would have gone to house him, feed him, etc, and generally to enhance his life. The award of damages has to cover all this too. Plus anticipated medical costs which, depending on his condition, may be substantial.

All of this will have been covered in the actuarial calculation that led to the 22.5 million figure.

This is an agreed settlement, so the hospital's lawyers will have been through the calculations and the assumptions underlying them, and will have agreed them with the boy's lawyers. The judge has approved the agreed settlement, but he didn't produce the figure.

Ted_YNWA

Moving thread from AH to CA

lawrencesummers

[PHP][/PHP]

simongurnick wrote: »

Settlement payments aren't coming from hospital budgets. They have insurance policies against this and very often the settlement isnt paid lump sum, but spread over years in installments

You can be sure the insurance company isn’t footing the bill.
The taxpayer is.

smurgen

AllForIt wrote: »

If the boy has brain damage surely there's no hope of him living anywhere near as long as 80 years.

I understand the lost term costs to care for someone but I still think 22.5 million is at least 50% more than it should be.

Could also be thought of as the age he should reach.

duffysfarm

As a parent i would prefer a healthy child than €22.5 million

Peregrinus

If the case is typical, the action will have been both against the HSE as the operator of the hospital and the medics involved who are alleged to have been negligent. The HSE do not carry liability insurance but the medics do, so they will have been represented by insurance companies. The settlement will have been agreed to by all parties, and there will be agreeement between the HSE and the insurers as to how much each of them will contribute to the 22.5 million. However that part of the agreement isn't subject to court approval; the court only considers the interests of the child. The HSE and the insurers are presumed to be grown-up enough to look after their own interests.

These parents are in an unending hell OP. This thread is very unfair on them.

If you want to question the levels of compensation awarded in court perhaps there are better cases to select.

EndaHonesty

simongurnick wrote: »

Settlement payments aren't coming from hospital budgets. They have insurance policies against this and very often the settlement isnt paid lump sum, but spread over years in installments

All clinical negligence costs and claims come out of the national reserve fund.

It costs hundreds of millions each year...

https://www.ntma.ie/annualreport2016/State_Claims_Agency.html

Peintre Celebre

I'd rather this young fella got 22 million than the Dail paying near 2 for a printer

boombang

Immortal Starlight wrote: »

No amount of money will ever make up for the quality of life this little boy is missing out on. He deserves every single last cent.

I understand this sentiment, but there's going to be €22.5m worth of care taken away from other patients to look after this unlucky lad.

beerguts

beerguts wrote: »

This isn't going to be a popular opinion but I feel this is a very excessive settlement award. The boy was not diagnosed with meningitis after birth and now has brain damage due to the medical negligence.I have no issue with compensation to cover the care for the lad over the course of his life but that could never amount to over €22 million euro.

Is their any safeguards to the state in this award that if he was to die early in life that the sum remaining would be reclaimed by the state. I don't think the parents should be entitled to any large sum that remained in this senario.



https://www.rte.ie/news/courts/2020/0917/1165723-settlement/

The quality of life lost not just by him but his parents as well.

I would certainly want my kids healthy than rich and brain damaged

boombang

simongurnick wrote: »

Settlement payments aren't coming from hospital budgets. They have insurance policies against this and very often the settlement isnt paid lump sum, but spread over years in installments

I don't think it makes a difference either way, as the costs are massive, lump sum or spread out, but it's my understanding that the HSE doesn't buy insurance as it's large enough to aggregate the costs.

I read recently that something like €2bn of the health spend is on compensation.

I think it's out of control.

Infini

It might sound cruel but if someone has such severe damage to the brain that they'll never have any sort of quality of life or being able to actually live only exist, Death would be a better option. We can compensate for many physical thing's or even replace defective organs and limbs but when it comes to matters surrounding the brain if the damage is severe enough to the point one's perception of the world around them is severely limited and they cant even communitate properly it's honestly not even worth staying alive for. Wouldn't wish what this kid is suffering on anybody tbh it's just a neverending lifetime of hell with death being the only release from it at the very end. The payment might seem excessive but to be honest it's to cover him for the rest of his life, we really shouldn't need these kinds of payments though if someone ends up like this they deserve to have their full needs covered instead.

ohnonotgmail

boombang wrote: »

I don't think it makes a difference either way, as the costs are massive, lump sum or spread out, but it's my understanding that the HSE doesn't buy insurance as it's large enough to aggregate the costs.

I read recently that something like €2bn of the health spend is on compensation.

I think it's out of control.

that is irrelevant to this kid. Lifelong fulltime care for what could be decades is VERY expensive.

ohnonotgmail

Infini wrote: »

It might sound cruel but if someone has such severe damage to the brain that they'll never have any sort of quality of life or being able to actually live only exist, Death would be a better option. We can compensate for many physical thing's or even replace defective organs and limbs but when it comes to matters surrounding the brain if the damage is severe enough to the point one's perception of the world around them is severely limited and they cant even communitate properly it's honestly not even worth staying alive for. Wouldn't wish what this kid is suffering on anybody tbh it's just a neverending lifetime of hell with death being the only release from it at the very end. The payment might seem excessive but to be honest it's to cover him for the rest of his life, we really shouldn't need these kinds of payments though if someone ends up like this they deserve to have their full needs covered instead.

they will have their full needs covered. and they can do it without having to rely on the HSE who would never provide the level of care that this child needs.

Peregrinus

boombang wrote: »

I understand this sentiment, but there's going to be €22.5m worth of care taken away from other patients to look after this unlucky lad.

I know. But why should their care needs be prioritised over his care needs?

You could be absolutely brutal about this, and reason as follows:

1. Avoiding medical accidents costs money. When you have very complex systems (and hospitals are very complex systems) operating at the limit of their capacity - all equipment being use as intensively as possible, staff being as busy as possible, etc - that's when accidents are most likely to happen and when they are most difficult to recover from, because there is so little slack, so little spare time or resources in the system; everything and everyone is under maximum pressure all the time. This is a truism of organisation studies; you're not going to change it.

2. Medical accidents can be very expensive, as this case shows.

3. If you want to minimise medical accidents, and thus minimise that expense, what you have to do is operate systems below capacity. Either use the current resources (both physical resources and staff) less intensively and accept a lesser output, or put more resources into the system and use them less intensively to obtain the same output as at present. You'll then have a more resilient system with fewer accidents.

4. But you'll have a less efficient system; you're getting less healthcare outcomes for your euro.

5. In theory, there's a "sweet spot" - an optimum level of medical accidents such that, although it costs you a lot of money to pay for those medical accidents, it would cost you more money to reduce pressure across in the system to avoid them.

You can see why I call this brutal - it suggests that there's an acceptable, even a desirable level of medical accidents which maximises the efficiency of healthcare expenditure.

Most of us revolt against that calculation. Effiency of healthcare expenditure is important, but it's not the only important consideration, or even the most important consideration. Not actively harming patients is a pretty basic requirement for healthcare, and ought to be pursued even if it reduces the efficiency of healthcare overall.

If you accept that, then there's no case for not property recognised the costs of medical accidents, since that reduces the incentive to avoid medical accidents and, if you reduce the incentive to avoid them, more of them will happen.

s1ippy

Infini wrote: »

It might sound cruel but if someone has such severe damage to the brain that they'll never have any sort of quality of life or being able to actually live only exist, Death would be a better option. We can compensate for many physical thing's or even replace defective organs and limbs but when it comes to matters surrounding the brain if the damage is severe enough to the point one's perception of the world around them is severely limited and they cant even communitate properly it's honestly not even worth staying alive for. Wouldn't wish what this kid is suffering on anybody tbh it's just a neverending lifetime of hell with death being the only release from it at the very end. The payment might seem excessive but to be honest it's to cover him for the rest of his life, we really shouldn't need these kinds of payments though if someone ends up like this they deserve to have their full needs covered instead.

People with brain damage lead fulfulling and happy lives. They have emotions, likes and wants the same as you do. Their ability to communicate is limited, granted, but so is a pet's. Do you think we should kill all pets as well because it's inconvenient to care for them and you can't ask them how they're getting on? What if you or your child were in a car accident tomorrow and came out with most of your faculties, if the other driver was found to be responsible do you think it should be a case of him saying "I can't afford to pay for his care and he's got brain damage so he won't even enjoy being alive" and that's that, plug pulled?

It's fairly rich of you to presume that you can make a determination about somebody else's life experiences when you so clearly have such limited perception in your own.

BattleCorp

beerguts wrote: »

This isn't going to be a popular opinion but I feel this is a very excessive settlement award. The boy was not diagnosed with meningitis after birth and now has brain damage due to the medical negligence.I have no issue with compensation to cover the care for the lad over the course of his life but that could never amount to over €22 million euro.

Is their any safeguards to the state in this award that if he was to die early in life that the sum remaining would be reclaimed by the state. I don't think the parents should be entitled to any large sum that remained in this senario.



https://www.rte.ie/news/courts/2020/0917/1165723-settlement/

I don't mean to be disrespectful but I don't think you realise how much care this kid will need for the rest of his life nor the cost of providing such care.

Infini

s1ippy wrote: »

People with brain damage lead fulfulling and happy lives. They have emotions, likes and wants the same as you do. Their ability to communicate is limited, granted, but so is a pet's. Do you think we should kill all pets as well because it's inconvenient to care for them and you can't ask them how they're getting on? What if you or your child were in a car accident tomorrow and came out with most of your faculties, if the other driver was found to be responsible do you think it should be a case of him saying "I can't afford to pay for his care and he's got brain damage so he won't even enjoy being alive" and that's that, plug pulled?

It's fairly rich of you to presume that you can make a determination about somebody else's life experiences when you so clearly have such limited perception in your own.

You seem to have completely missed the point entirely, my point isnt about simple communication it's was about being able to percieve the reality of the world around you, the actual ability to act and live and witness the world. The damage the kid has suffered includes Cerebral palsy, mobility and neurolgical damage. The severe kind of damage the kid has suffered is of such cruelty I would consider it torture in a sense as there's no chance of being able to live any true sort of life only existing in a permenant state of limbo. Cerebral Palsy is also progressive and it gets gradually worse over time and can be severely dehabilitating in later stages.

It would be like having your sight and hearing severely curtailed to the point it's difficult to even understand, being barely able to comprehend ones surroundings, being unable to do the simplest thing's like go to the bathroom or shower on your own, lacking any kind of independence or dignity and even being able to do anything on your own without constant assistance either from ones parents till they die or a medical helper. There's no release except death, there's no way to improve or repair the damage, your left unable to do anything until either your body fails or one dies of natural causes.

If I ever suffered that kind of injury to my Brain that left me unable to live I wouldnt want to exist like that, would be better to be put out of my misery than exist in a permenant state of limbo with no way of improving or living any sort of life. It's a bit rich to come assuming I'm making assumptions when I'm perfectly aware of the kind of suffering one can be put through when one suffers damage to their brain, believe me theres plenty out there who would actually share my view, once the damage to one's brain reaches such a point it's no longer worth living it's just torturous and meaningless existence until the end.

eviltwin

Geuze wrote: »

Surely the HSE will be paying for social care anyways?

Ah come on you can't be that naive. HSE will pay for only the most basic of care and sometimes not even that.

lawred2

beerguts wrote: »

This isn't going to be a popular opinion but I feel this is a very excessive settlement award. The boy was not diagnosed with meningitis after birth and now has brain damage due to the medical negligence.I have no issue with compensation to cover the care for the lad over the course of his life but that could never amount to over €22 million euro.

Is their any safeguards to the state in this award that if he was to die early in life that the sum remaining would be reclaimed by the state. I don't think the parents should be entitled to any large sum that remained in this senario.



https://www.rte.ie/news/courts/2020/0917/1165723-settlement/

jesus

you think it's party time for them now?

Strumms

Infini wrote: »

You seem to have completely missed the point entirely, my point isnt about simple communication it's was about being able to percieve the reality of the world around you, the actual ability to act and live and witness the world. The damage the kid has suffered includes Cerebral palsy, mobility and neurolgical damage. The severe kind of damage the kid has suffered is of such cruelty I would consider it torture in a sense as there's no chance of being able to live any true sort of life only existing in a permenant state of limbo. Cerebral Palsy is also progressive and it gets gradually worse over time and can be severely dehabilitating in later stages.

It would be like having your sight and hearing severely curtailed to the point it's difficult to even understand, being barely able to comprehend ones surroundings, being unable to do the simplest thing's like go to the bathroom or shower on your own, lacking any kind of independence or dignity and even being able to do anything on your own without constant assistance either from ones parents till they die or a medical helper. There's no release except death, there's no way to improve or repair the damage, your left unable to do anything until either your body fails or one dies of natural causes.

If I ever suffered that kind of injury to my Brain that left me unable to live I wouldnt want to exist like that, would be better to be put out of my misery than exist in a permenant state of limbo with no way of improving or living any sort of life. It's a bit rich to come assuming I'm making assumptions when I'm perfectly aware of the kind of suffering one can be put through when one suffers damage to their brain, believe me theres plenty out there who would actually share my view, once the damage to one's brain reaches such a point it's no longer worth living it's just torturous and meaningless existence until the end.

Because YOU consider it torture doesn’t mean they or anybody else does. Get yourself in contact with the organization ‘headway’ in blackball place. They will show you just how out of touch with reality you are. Take it from me.

EndaHonesty

boombang wrote: »

I understand this sentiment, but there's going to be €22.5m worth of care taken away from other patients to look after this unlucky lad.

The money does not come out of the HSE budget so no care will be taken away from anyone.

The money comes out of the national reserve fund...

Nermal

EndaHonesty wrote: »

The money does not come out of the HSE budget so no care will be taken away from anyone.

The money comes out of the national reserve fund...

And if the national reserve fund didn't have to be funded to pay for it, the HSE budget could be larger.

Payouts from the public system should be capped at a much, much lower level than this and a higher standard of negligence should be proven. If you have a problem with that, go private - you'll see what indemnity really costs then.

Let people choose the level of risk and insurance they're willing to pay for.

Peregrinus

Nermal wrote: »

And if the national reserve fund didn't have to be funded to pay for it, the HSE budget could be larger.

Nermal wrote: »

Payouts from the public system should be capped at a much, much lower level than this and a higher standard of negligence should be proven. If you have a problem with that, go private - you'll see what indemnity really costs then.

Let people choose the level of risk and insurance they're willing to pay for.

I don't really think we want to operate a public health system in which doctors are held to lower professional standards than would otherwise apply.

On the matter of choice, if you go private there's nothing to stop you contracting with a provider on the basis that the provider has a reduced standard of care to you and a correspondingly reduced liablity, so people who want that can have it. The choice is already there. But I can't see any argument for imposing such a rule on people who use the public health service. That's not choice; that's just depriving people of the rights that other people enjoy by default.

Nor is it clear why we would single out the victims of medical accidents for this vindictive treatment. Why don't we just impose a rule that the HSE does not owe the normal obligations to, say, cancer patients? Couldn't cancer patients go private if they want the full service?

hullaballoo

I don't think this gets much attention but the absolute maximum that can be paid in this country for general damages - that is the pain, suffering, inconvenience and loss of a normal life as a result of injuries - is €450,000.

Every penny over and above that in any award is for out-of-pocket expenses past and future. Other people have done the maths that show €22.5 million looks like a big number until you divide it into hours in years for average life expectancy etc.

Being honest, most people who understand money would baulk at the idea of receiving a one time only payment of €22.5 million today and never getting anything else for the rest of your life, not because €22.5 million is not a lot of money today but because we have no idea what value €22.5 million will have in 20, 30, 40+ years. All we can really reasonably say about it is that it is highly likely to be worth less than it is worth today. How much less is not a question we can answer with any certainty even with the relatively stable long term economic outlook we have as EU members.

So two big takeaways for me in this thread are 1. I would take my (almost) fully intact body over any amount of money and 2. the idea of a "large payout" is relative to place and time.

s1ippy

The ward of court system is responsible for incurring a return on investment on the sum of money over the course of its use, so there's no fear of it running out. I suspect that the entire thing is actually a hugely profitable endeavour for the state, given the enormous sums involved.

Knine

Geuze wrote: »

Another point - given that social care is available from the HSE, financed by taxes, why the need for the award?

I think I know the answer, but would like it confirmed.


It is that Judges have agreed that private care is allowed in the award, so the award must be big enough to pay for private social care.

Really? Clearly you are not a Carer for someone with a severe disability. There is little to no help or respite. In this pandemic Carers have largely been forgotten. Caring is also 24/7

hullaballoo

s1ippy wrote: »

The ward of court system is responsible for incurring a return on investment on the sum of money over the course of its use, so there's no fear of it running out. I suspect that the entire thing is actually a hugely profitable endeavour for the state, given the enormous sums involved.

It's all publicly available information so supect no more: https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/e184b845-c657-4a75-ac34-13be650c0f04/Accountant%20Report%202019.pdf/pdf

That's the most recent financial report I found. Admittedly it was not easy to find on the courts.ie website but it was one of the first results on google for "accountant of the courts of justice financial statements 2019".

Munstergirl854

Just out of curiosity, what chunk of that would the legal team receive?