Litigation needs an engine; that is, something must drive the process forwards. For a personal injury victim that engine is, normally, the persistent fact of the injury. From the medical point of view this will imply difficulty coming up with a prognosis. A prognosis is a doctor’s estimate of the progress (or lack of it) expected of the patient.
1. I have been injured; will the person who injured me, or his/her insurance company, hasten to fully compensate me? No, they will not. This is human nature and also implied in the social arrangements under which we live. 2. Will the Injuries Board ensure that my interests are fully looked after? No, it will not. It has a limited focus. It only addresses one question; the level of compensation the injured person ought to get. It does little to […]
It is very possible for an injured applicant to know nothing of the personal circumstances of a guilty respondent. Even the Injuries Board may know nothing of those circumstances; the Board will carry on correspondence with a lawyer or an insurance company acting for the respondent (who, in their turn, may also not know of the state of health of the respondent).
The Injuries Board views this information narrowly. It extracts it as statistics and makes little effort to draw conclusions from it.
What a pity the court failed to make clear whether the Plaintiff had made an error by applying to the Personal Injuries Assessment Board for an authorisation to issue proceedings against the Defendant or not.
The Supreme Court decided the award of €90,000 by the High Court for the injury was too low. It increased the award to €120,000.
Conventionally, to propose a debate is to, impliedly, claim to be reasonable. Calling for a debate overlooks the fact that we cannot, and should not, submit everything to debate; where things are settled and agreed, they should not be opened to examination (and procrastination), unnecessarily.
The Hospital argued that the pleadings in the action alleged a defect with, or in, a forceps used in the Hospital. It argued that a claim that a forceps was defective was not a medical negligence claim (“…the correctness or otherwise of the surgical procedure being carried out”), but was a defective product claim.
The MIBI was not mentioned specifically in the 2003 Act, hence the doubt. The judgment makes sense; anything else would have been an anomaly. Indeed, in a very real sense the 2003 Act was intended to apply to the MIBI more than anyone or anything else; they are the insurance industry.