BPKS wrote: » Said this on another thread but I'd love to know the solicitor who keeps taking on this fellas cases. Or would it just drum up more business for said solicitors if it was public knowledge?
Nermal wrote: » Change the law so that injuries for which scientific evidence cannot be obtained (back pain, whiplash) don't qualify compensation. You might say you have a sore neck, your doctor may agree, and the judge may say you're not lying. But if it doesn't show on an X-ray, you should get nothing.
Nermal wrote: You might say you have a sore neck, your doctor may agree, and the judge may say you're not lying. But if it doesn't show on an X-ray, you should get nothing.
Hitman3000 wrote: » Soft tissue damage to the best of my knowledge does not show up on an x-ray, but it is a real injury. Perhaps compensation can be given in the from free physio therapy sessions.
Deleted User wrote: » Are you saying acceptance of conditions can only be based on lab results and you would not accept the patient's own description of their condition and the observations of medical experts?
osarusan wrote: » So if I'm crashed into by somebody else who is ruled to be at fault, and have back pain which is acknowledged by a doctor and a judge, I would have to pay by myself for any physiotherapy I needed?
baylah17 wrote: » So loss of earnings, inability to participate in normal social activity should be disregarded,?
arctictree wrote: » I'm amazed that someone gets bumped by a car and needs a 10K payout but go play a contact sport and get hit 20 times in an hour and no worries.
baylah17 wrote: So loss of earnings, inability to participate in normal social activity should be disregarded,?
Nermal wrote: » I can accept them, and I might even sometimes believe them, but they should not qualify for compensation. The 'observations of medical experts' in these cases amount to 'patient says he has a sore neck'. That's not evidence of a quality that merits compensation.
Nermal wrote: » I can accept them, and I might even sometimes believe them, but they should not qualify for compensation. The 'observations of medical experts' in these cases amount to 'patient says he has a sore neck'. That's not evidence of a standard that should merit compensation. Correct.
Deleted User wrote: » Huh? It is public knowledge. The court lists with the names of solicitors in each case are available on court diaries available online...just use Google! Did you actually think it was some secret and the basis of a conspiracy theory about drumming up more business? Some of the stuff here that people think are valid theories...:D:D
Deleted User wrote: » No they don't. At all. Have you seen medical reports in such cases? They don't really just say "patient says he has a sore neck" do they?
dmc17 wrote: » His wife's insurance will skyrocket after all these claims against her. How will she afford her renewal next year. If only there were someone who could help her offset the increased cost..............
Nermal wrote: » Putting words in my mouth. They don't say that, they amount to that.
Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: » In reality, whiplash (a horrible thing) is what a patient says it is as it can't be proven
alchemist33 wrote: » I presume their insurance premiums have become massive?
coL wrote: » The logic of what they are doing seems a bit flawed to me. Surely the wife is at fault for crashing into the back of someone so her insurance will skyrocket (if she can even get quoted) and will stay high for a lot of years to come. I don't really see the gain to them over the long run, am I missing something?
arctictree wrote: If the wife doesn't normally drive and just got insured (and a provisional licence) for the purposes of this racket then its a win win all around. She wont need to get insured again and the payout will be many times more than her initial premium. I'm assuming the insurance companies cant discriminate based on ethnicity etc
diomed wrote: A harrowing tale of family misfortune.
Business Cat wrote: » The problem with "soft tissue injuries" is that they are virtually impossible to prove or disprove beyond reasonable doubt. I can go to my doctor say I was rear ended, feign pain when asked to perform daily rotary tests like turning my head or stretching arms above my head. Doctors can only provide a diagnosis based on the evidence presented. Place a compo cap on injury payments for non provable injuries like whiplash and a large amount of frivolous claims will go away.
Deleted User wrote: » I love cases like these when a judge says they don't believe parts of the claimants' stories but sure here's some cash anywayz.
Deleted User wrote: » Ultimately the problem is not with Judges, or the law, or Solicitors, or Insurance Companies, or Doctors. The problem is simply that it's so very difficult to detect. Judges have to rely on direct evidence, not hunches, not on the basis of the ethnic identity of the parties - an extremely dangerous undercurrent here. Oh and the idea that because of their socio economic background Judges have some affinity with travellers is laughable. If 2 people in a car, the driver and passenger, say there was no fraud, is a Doctor supposed to say the passenger didn't sustain an injury, is the Solicitor supposed to brand that passenger a liar?
Deleted User wrote: » Either way, we seem to be moving from the point of the thread. Which as I understood is not so much about quantum and the limits of medical science in showing whiplash on a sheet of x ray or mri film, but the fundamental issue of liability.
Deleted User wrote: Either way, we seem to be moving from the point of the thread. Which as I understood is not so much about quantum and the limits of medical science in showing whiplash on a sheet of x ray or mri film, but the fundamental issue of liability.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w5.vanillicon.com/v2/5c1c06444977305a5e99f4ce35119320.svg)
