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

Supermacs open Letter to Solicitors

Options
124»

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    BattleCorp
    Registered Users Posts: 11,758 ✭✭✭✭BattleCorp


    ratracer wrote: »
    https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/judge-throws-out-240000-claim-of-fourwho-went-to-solicitor-before-their-doctors-40359446.html

    Reading this bullsh1t claim in the paper reminded me of this thread, and why Pat McDonagh is 100% correct in challenging ambulance chasing solicitors! I'm surprised, but glad to see, that judges are finally seeing sense and facts in these type of case.

    Would this solicitor be held to account to the bar or anyone else for deliberately trying to mislead the case, or the doctor, who had previously worked for the firm?

    I don't see what the solicitor did wrong there to be honest. It's not uncommon for a solicitor to make arrangements for their client to see a medical specialist.

    It looks like the four plaintiffs were trying to cover up the fact that they had previous injuries but if they didn't tell their solicitor about them, then how was the solicitor to know?

    If you are p1ssed off at the doctor or solicitor, you can take solace at the fact that neither of them are probably going to get paid a penny for their work on this case.


  • Options
    #93
    PatrickSmithUS
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 263 ✭✭PatrickSmithUS


    BattleCorp wrote: »
    I don't see what the solicitor did wrong there to be honest. It's not uncommon for a solicitor to make arrangements for their client to see a medical specialist.


    100% agree. It happens all the time.


  • Options
    #94
    whippet
    Registered Users Posts: 7,672 ✭✭✭whippet


    In a case like that which was such a flagrant case of fraud … the solicitor representing them in my opinion was either incompetent or complicit … either way it’s understandable for someone like McDonagh to be suspicious of multiple claims coming in from a single legal firm


  • Options
    #95
    Eggs For Dinner
    Registered Users Posts: 2,944 ✭✭✭Eggs For Dinner


    BattleCorp wrote: »
    I don't see what the solicitor did wrong there to be honest. It's not uncommon for a solicitor to make arrangements for their client to see a medical specialist.
    e.

    It's not unusual for certain solicitors to use the same medical people for the majority of their cases. Read in to that what you will


  • Options
    #96
    GerardKeating
    Registered Users Posts: 7,542 ✭✭✭GerardKeating


    They in trouble with DPC over CCTV maybe.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Eggs For Dinner wrote: »
    It's not unusual for certain solicitors to use the same medical people for the majority of their cases. Read in to that what you will

    You find it strange that a company uses another company on an ongoing basis?

    Pretty standard on pretty much every business in the world


  • Options
    #98
    angel eyes 2012
    Registered Users Posts: 903 ✭✭✭angel eyes 2012


    GerardKeating wrote: »
    They in trouble with DPC over CCTV maybe.

    The High Court decided that seeking access of the cctv footage, was inappropriate in the circumstances. It is not explicitly stated, but I am assuming the footage contained personal data, and therefore would be subject to an access request under the GDPR.

    In effect the DPC's guidance conflicting with the judgment of the High Court. Not very reassuring to data controllers processing cctv images.


  • Options
    #99
    Eggs For Dinner
    Registered Users Posts: 2,944 ✭✭✭Eggs For Dinner


    Niner leprauchan wrote: »
    You find it strange that a company uses another company on an ongoing basis?

    Pretty standard on pretty much every business in the world

    Especially if they keep delivering the exact service you require.


  • Options
    #100
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Eggs For Dinner wrote: »
    Especially if they keep delivering the exact service you require.

    Yes, a medical report. Why on earth would a solicitor bounce around doctors? Makes no sense.


  • Options
    #101
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    angel eyes 2012 wrote: »
    The High Court decided that seeking access of the cctv footage, was inappropriate in the circumstances. It is not explicitly stated, but I am assuming the footage contained personal data, and therefore would be subject to an access request under the GDPR.

    In effect the DPC's guidance conflicting with the judgment of the High Court. Not very reassuring to data controllers processing cctv images.

    It was only a once off and I assume based on the fact that a case had already started.

    Nothing stopping you making the request before lodging your claim.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    Victor
    Registered Users Posts: 78,282 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #103
    partyguinness
    Registered Users Posts: 8,207 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #104
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,187 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #105
    partyguinness
    Registered Users Posts: 8,207 ✭✭✭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.”


  • Options
    #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.


  • Options
    #107
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 34,060 ✭✭✭✭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.

    Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.



  • Options
    #108
    McCrack
    Registered Users Posts: 2,968 ✭✭✭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