There's probably quite a few issues wrapped up in this one story.
But just one in particular strikes me - the fact that medical evidence supported a claim that we only know to be false because of the happenstance that the claimant entered a Christmas Tree throwing competition.
Should there be any follow-up or implications for doctors who provide medical evidence that's just plain wrong?
It's all swings and roundabouts really....
I know what you mean, but at the same time should doctors not just say that? If their expert advice was "the patient reports pain, but I've no idea if that report is real" would anybody making a claim pay them for their advice?
Rockin' around the Christmas tree.
The problem isn't with this con artist.
It's the ones looking for 40K and below where the insurance company will liberally pay out.
The 'eff off money' recipients - again enabled by upstanding solicitors.
Cheaper than getting it to the barristers. Ker ching!
But will she pay anything? Is there free legal aid for personal injury claims? It’s a complete joke if there is
No, but solicitors can waive their fees.
She will have paid all the costs of the reports and here consultant visits and won't reclaim them.
On the hook for the other side's costs but if she has no assets, it little use going after her.
Perhaps it was a brain injury and she didn't even realise she was throwing Christmas trees, she might have thought she was playing mahjong!
She would have gotten away with it if she went for a lower amount instead of sprucing it up.
She made it to fox news yesterday
https://www.foxnews.com/world/mom-loses-disability-case-news-reports-shows-her-winning-tree-throwing-competition
Seems weird to dismiss all her injuries, just because she threw a tree.
Should the medical examiners be questioned about their reports but I assume they have their back sides well covered.
Part of the issue is that in alot of cases, the injuries cannot conclusively be proved or disproved. Ive seen enough medical reports in my time to know that most physicians will not deal in absolutes but will outline what their examination indicated, eg
"patient was checked for XYZ range of movement and reported pain/discomfort/lack of movement range"
They dont say conclusively that the patient is genuine, they just state what they are presented with.
Whiplash / soft tissue injuries cannot be diagnosed beyond reasonable doubt so more often than not, the law will side with the claimant.
For 760k I’d be expecting more than its sore. I’d be expecting some serious concrete evidence. Some range of motion resistance.
100% agree that the system is poor for medico legal reporting but, it is fundamentally how doctors are trained and practice every day in non-insurance elements of their work.
You turn up at the GP/Consultant with pain or issue and they will take you at your word and try to find out what ails you - this could take months of testing if the symptoms are not visible. Now, with an insurance claimant they have basically 15 minutes to interview, examine and then report so, they will just repeat what they are told.
The insurers would have obtained their own reports which may have said the complaints are not consistent etc - this is what likely led to the investigations which discovered the tree tossing (unless someone called the fraud hotline and, it dropped in their laps).
Exactly, it's fraud so she should be persued through the courts!
The biggest issue and driver of this has been and remains to be the legal system. They have creamed it in for decades, adding on average 40% costs to every claim.
Most of them operated on a no win no fee basis, I can see that changing as more and more spurious claims are thrown out, they will begin charging retainers before agreeing to take on cases.
Alot of people won't have the capacity to guarantee they will pay their solicitors several thousand if the claim is unsuccessful so this should in turn move more people towards PIAB.
So many easy fixes to these false claims
1) jail time for the lady who lied to court, she committed perjury
2) all disability allowance which she claimed over the years to be recouped
3) a bond or deposit to be paid by the plaintiff when taking such a case, repayable if they win, forfeited if they lose so as to covers costs
4) a bond or deposit to be paid by the solicitor taking the case, as above
5) an end to no foal no fee type fee structures for solicitors
But most of this would impact the income of the legal profession, so would never be implemented.
So exactly which injuries were genuine then?
She said she couldn't lift a shopping bag
It would nearly be worth setting up a PI company to get these investigation contracts off the insurance companies.
The days of sitting in a car for hours or days with a camera are long gone.
This one like so many others were rumbled by a simple google search and a look at her social media.
When AND WHErE did this happen.? The whole situation re physical/mental claims like this is that it is assumed by almost all that the claims are genuine. And therefor there is little or no effort made to DOUBLE CHECK did the accident actually happen, was it as severe as was stated, etc, etc.
I am aware of a situation of someone walking into the front of a truck that was parked and was back playing hurling, golf and cycling the following week. Won €150,000=She claimed that the truck was morning and drove into her.
another case where another individual imported an expensive machine that went on fire under very suspicious circumstances- it being only two weeks in his possession. The guy told a neighbour that he was not happy with the machine because of its performance. Insurance paid out again
no wonder insurance premiums are so high with this kind of carryon
The vast majority of claims don't end up in court.
In a lot of circumstances people have no choice but to get their solicitor involved because the insurance company is acting the complete bollíx.
Lets not be going down the route of pretending the insurance companies and their billion euro monopoly are the good guys here.
Which may be true as she was seen lifting a tree not a bag 😁
Doctors are still getting paid for the reports.
Insurers operate within the bounds of what judges do. If judges start throwing out claims for unprovable injuries, insurers will stop paying them.
The vast vast majority of cases don't get near a Judge. Roughly 5% of claims do.
Insurance companies operate in the bounds of what gives them the highest profit margin. They choose to pay out on 75% of claims, the details of this is a guarded secret.
You always hear the stories of people getting high pay outs but never the 1000s who get low balled.
I'm not defending solicitors that are playing the game, but the insurance are fully committed and togged out too.
They blame each other whilst the vast vast majority of people who don't make any sort of fraudulent claim or claim at all have no choice but to pay for the gravy train.
Nonsense also re people needing to get solicitors involved, the majority of time it's to try and get more money from insurance companies, not because insurance companies are acting the bollix.
That's not a court. 😕
The cases that make it in front of judges set the framework for settlement for those that don't.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w0.vanillicon.com/v2/04cbf1b64e8b0e561c543c5b1091ba30.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w0.vanillicon.com/v2/0e54e8024b002427df3ce2953d22b721.svg)
