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 all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
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

Supermacs open Letter to Solicitors

13»

Comments

  • #102
    Victor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,490 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    Niner leprauchan wrote: »
    Yes, a medical report. Why on earth would a solicitor bounce around doctors? Makes no sense.
    To keep the doctors honest from being complacent?


  • #103
    partyguinness
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,203 ✭✭✭partyguinness


    The issue is not so much the solicitor recommending a medical appointment. That is quite normal.

    The issue is that the plaintiff's first port of call was to a solicitor rather than his doctor. In other words, he could not have been that badly hurt and the plaintiff immediately thought of a nice little shake down. That is the gist of the Judge's comment.


  • #104
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,513 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    partyguinness wrote: »
    The issue is not so much the solicitor recommending a medical appointment. That is quite normal.

    The issue is that the plaintiff's first port of call was to a solicitor rather than his doctor. In other words, he could not have been that badly hurt and the plaintiff immediately thought of a nice little shake down. That is the gist of the Judge's comment.

    what are you basing that on? what have I missed in the thread.


  • #105
    partyguinness
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,203 ✭✭✭partyguinness


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    what are you basing that on? what have I missed in the thread.


    The above article from the Indo:


    “It is a well-known and obvious fact and rarely a good idea for a would-be plaintiff to visit their solicitor before seeking medical treatment,” Judge McCourt said. “If all of them had turned up at Dr Murphy’s door before going to their solicitors then some store might be placed on Dr Murphy’s reports.”


  • #106
    PatrickSmithUS
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 263 ✭✭PatrickSmithUS


    SuperMacs are being very brave taking on personal injury claims, maybe they should sort out the unfair dismissal claims they've had to fight in recent years.


  • #107
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,504 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    A perfect example of whataboutery. They may or may not be a shyte place to work for, but that doesn't entitle people to stage "accidents" in their jacks and cash in.

    Scrap the cap!



  • #108
    McCrack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,982 ✭✭✭McCrack


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    A perfect example of whataboutery. They may or may not be a shyte place to work for, but that doesn't entitle people to stage "accidents" in their jacks and cash in.

    Nobody has suggested that at all


Advertisement