11 July 2022: Francis - D

The afternoon continued with the guidelines for damages payments being reviewed. On the matter of care needs, a very worrying scenario was described of how court claims, which often involve the two sides seeking separate expert assessments of needs, ending up having to argue about these needs in the court. That requires the poor claimant having to undergo two detailed care assessments at their home going into every aspect of their lives. One expert looking to maximise what the person needs, and one minimising what they need. After the difficulties for people of experiencing yet another two intrusions into their home lives, they then have the experience of the results being raked over in the courtroom. Sir Robert said that care is often one of the larger cost elements in claims, yet the results are surprisingly predictable over the piece. For the Compensation Framework, he imagined that the care component would be one of the areas where a tariff could be set at a standardised level and fit well into his approach. Clearly, there would be cases where some individual situations and needs would be much greater, and these would have to be factored in.

On Recommendation 9, the witness recounted the overwhelming desire among those he spoke with to maintain the support payments beyond whatever is arrived at for compensation. In relation to future payments from schemes, as a person who was eligible for compensation progressed that claim, some elements of financial losses awards would need to take account of ongoing (not past) scheme payments. The discussion then went on to explore how that might work in practical terms. It did seem to revert back to individualised assessment, especially when people thought they could demonstrate a much higher loss of future earnings. Otherwise, the reliance would be based on the median wage as the standard to follow. This approach would allow for avoiding another scenario in a court setting where lawyers argue over lots of pieces of paper to try to maximise loss of earnings awards. This writer has a question about this matter. If the Government still says a negligence claim in court would fail, and the basis for this compensation is a moral case, how could a person expect to make a successful court claim for loss of earnings under these circumstances?

A major milestone was arrived at when Sir Robert re-stated that his recommendation was for past payments from the various schemes not to be considered as payment to account and taken off of a person’s compensation settlement. This was because of how these past amounts were described as having charitable purposes, and not being compensation. This was a positive way to end Day 1.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

26 July 2023: Sunak - A

And in walked the Prime Minister (PM), at exactly 2pm. One minute later the Chair enters. Sir Brian said a few words of thanks for the special circumstances related to access people had to endure due to the additional security arrangements. The PM gave the oath following his own religious affiliation. Counsel contextually reviewed how the witness had stated that his knowledge and involvement relied on other Ministers, however he had received more recent briefings in preparation for the appearance today. The first questions went straight to the communications from Penny Mordaunt when she was Paymaster General (PG). These highlighted in strong terms the need for action at the time and not to delay. Before answering, the witness wanted to say how he recognised this was, “An appalling scandal … people have suffered for decades” (and other fine words not backed up with action). In relation to the letters from the PG, he did not see them under the normal situation of a triage to filter the c...
Read more

25 July 2023: Dunn - B

Questions from core participants: Was there an investigation into the newspaper leaks? She was not aware of one, but that would have been taken forward by the Cabinet Office. (Fox and chicken coop comes to mind.) What are the main elements being used to come up with the leaked figures? She was not able to say but would get back to the Inquiry with that information. On psychological support, will the research be made publicly available, and when? She expected it would be and was expected in August. The research was understood to have been commissioned in 2022, but the need was highlighted in 2020. Why did it take so long to get to the point of commissioning the work? She said there was a process of “ongoing dialogue” after which it was decided that what was required was more ongoing dialogue. (That’s not exactly how it was phrased.) The Chair referenced himself as having, on several occasions, expressed the hope that he can recognise how everyone in the UK, including England, was benefi...
Read more

17 November 2022: Panel on finding the undiagnosed - A

Another panel of leading medics were assembled to address the issue of how to find people who are still undiagnosed. There was one from each of the four nations: Professor Graham Foster (England); Professor John Dillon (Scotland); Doctor Brendan Healey (Wales); and Dr Joanne McLean (Northern Ireland). As usual, for each witness there was a brief review of their respective roles and responsibilities. The situation in England started with a description of the HCV elimination initiative and its arrangement involving the pharmaceutical companies which was lauded by the English witness but seemed curious. For their cooperation, the pharma companies get anonymous, headline data on patients. There is a three phase elimination programme in England. Phase 1 is about oral therapies. Phase 2 is about risk groups. It involves an incentivised process to encourage the identification by re-engagement with patients who had had a positive test but had not been treated. It involved about 50,000 people. ...
Read more