Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
THE GOVERNMENT HAS announced changes to the personal injury claims system that it says will help to reduce the cost of claims and will thereby lower motor insurance premiums. The relevant changes relate to two areas in particular.
The first arises from an allegation that some claimants in the Personal Injuries Assessment Board (PIAB) system deliberately refuse to attend medical examinations arranged by the PIAB.
The second arises from an allegation that some claimants deliberately refuse to provide written evidence in support of their claim for things like losses of earnings and medical and other expenses incurred in connection with their claim.
What is supposed to be the problem?
It has been alleged that this has been done in an attempt to frustrate the PIAB’s assessment process by preventing the PIAB from determining the true value of the claim, thus ensuring that the case will proceed to court rather than being concluded at PIAB level.
For anyone serious about dealing with a legitimate personal injury claim properly, attending at a medical examination or submitting details of losses of earnings and other expenses when requested to do so simply makes sense and is in their own interest.
Any respectable solicitor will advise his or her client to attend medical appointments and to submit details of losses when they are requested. Any person making an application to the PIAB without a solicitor would be mad not to act in their own best interests in dealing with the system as and when called upon to do so.
Is there really evidence that this is happening?
The only scenario in which changes like these would be necessary would be if it were accepted that there was wholesale influence on the system by rogue solicitors advising their clients not to co-operate with PIAB in order to get cases rejected by the PIAB, or to have them assessed at an artificially low level, leading to costly court proceedings that could and should otherwise be avoided.
But as with so much of the allegations of impropriety on the part of personal injury claimants generally, we just haven’t seen any evidence of this and it defies common sense. If the PIAB system is going to provide a victim of personal injury with the the correct level of compensation for the injury that they have suffered, it would make no sense for them not to accept it. If the figure is right no claimant is going to want their day in court for the sake of it and no self-respecting solicitor would advise a client otherwise.
The government has stated in the context of making these proposals that it is estimated that non-attendance at medicals is an issue in approximately 10% of all assessments. We are not provided with any context on this estimate and we have no way of knowing the factors involved in such non-attendance.
People can miss appointments for all kinds of reasons and it is quite a leap to suggest that all of these non-attendances arise out of a deliberate attempt to frustrate or undermine the personal injury claims process. It is far more likely that deliberate non-attendance accounts for only a small minority of these cases, in which case the numbers we are talking about here are small and have no material impact on the overall claims process.
It’s not all down to claimants
The background to the failure of some claimants to provide written evidence of their losses and expenses, particularly their losses of earnings, is a little more interesting. Personal injury claims often involve accidents at work, and in such cases the claimant’s employer is the person against whom the claim will be made.
It can regularly be a feature of such cases that employees can have difficulty in getting details of their loss of earnings from their employers, and the only form of evidence of loss of earning that the PIAB will accept is a certificate from the employer. In these instances this is not so much a case of claimants frustrating the process but rather those who caused the injuries in the first place.
These changes are being highlighted as required to reduce the cost of injury claims, but there is no evidence that the types of practices alleged to be behind all of this are actually happening. If they are, it is likely to be on a very small scale and driven by disreputable solicitors, who are the only ones who might benefit from this.
If it prevents any kind of deliberate abuse of the PIAB system, the proposed changes may be a good thing. But innocent injury claimants who genuinely miss appointments or who cannot get evidence of loss of earnings because their employers don’t want to own up to their responsibilities should not be penalised in the process. And the likelihood that any of this will have a meaningful impact on the cost of motor insurance premiums seems remote.
John McCarthy is a partner with McCarthy & Co Solicitors, a nationwide law firm specialising in personal injury and medical negligence cases.
Climate crisis? More like climate scam to tax your very existence.
Hey Damocles, this is the weakness of democracy Shane Bradley was talking about^^^^. Short-termist idiots like this case here have a vote, and also breed.
This is simply put and well said. The weakness of all democracies, our own included, is short termism and superficiality. Rarely do politicians see beyond the next election or beneath a newspaper headline.nThis is why when the economic bubble was expanding in the mid 2000s not one of the main political parties had a ‘let’s be prudent and stop spending’ manifesto and if they did, would they have enjoyed electoral success? I think not.nSo too with our fragile climate, which needs unpopular short term pain (public transport resources, running costs of cars increasing even more, water charges etc) for unseen and inexperienced benefits ( a sustainable future). Now that’s a real vote winner!!!
That’s a bit arrogant, Shane.
The majority of the electorate are shallow, vacuous people who are incapable of long term thoughts and only care about the latest glittery bauble presented by the greedy politicians, while only a small minority like yourself are capable of seeing the great vision?
Give people a chance, they might surprise you.
They constantly surprise us Damocles.
They elect Jackie Healy-Rae, then Michael; they elect Lowry and Cowen and Ahern and all their ilk. They surprise us every time.
Frankly, I wish they’d stop surprising us quite so much…
I stopped believing in climate change and other fairy-tales when I was a child. Most sensible people realize that the Earths climate goes through cycles and future generations are heading towards an Ice age regardless. What never ceases to amaze me is mans stupidity in believing Global Warming is anything but a political movement designed for taxes and careers. 10,000 years ago Arizona was under 40″ of ice, so we know that temperature can vary on its own. Glaciers world wide have been shrinking for the last 300 years, this means that things other than CO2 change our climate.
To keep things in context, a recent survey ‘The Petition Project’ featured over 31,000 of the worlds most esteemed scientists signing the petition stating “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide will, in the forseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere”
The Inconvenient Truth, like most political propaganda is for sheep.
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.” Galileo Galileo
….and surprised again. Cheers for that Paula….
Go have a read:
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
BTW Paula your “petition project” ? “Doctor” Michael J Fox, “Doctor” Geri Halliwell, “Doctor” John C. Grisham and “Doctor” Perry S. Mason are all signatories. Now, I enjoyed Back to the Future as much as any other kid, but I don’t really think it qualified Michael J Fox to the point where his signature was sufficient evidence to discount the work of climatologists the world over for the past fifty years and the physical evidence they’ve uncovered and highlighted.
For anyone who genuinely wants to know the full story behind the “Petition Project”, take a read:
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-11-12/#feature
Interesting article and very good points, the only problem is that if we were to reduce our beef farming then it will probably just move to somewhere like south America where it is in general not as sustainable and therefore increase carbon emissions worldwide but Ireland would have an A+
Well we could do a bit more tillage but buy doing so beef prices would rise, but still global warming is a theory, those climate scientists like to fudge reports to make them sound more dramatic, like those guys in England before Copenhagen 2009.
Yeah Peter, it’s just a theory.
Like, you know, the theory of gravity.
Anyday now, we’re going to prove that that silly gravity thing is just a theory and then we’ll all fly like pigeons…
The climate has always changed and always will.the cows have always belched and farted .and Molly will get paid to scare the s— out of us .more methaine.
Very true Eilish, but George Carlin put it better: “The Planet is fine, it doesn’t need saving. It’s the People who’re f*cked!”
This is the biggest load of rubbish i have ever read. Friends of the Earth should be called enemies of the people. What will people do when there is no food to eat or not enough lettuce to go around. Typical scaremongering from global warming morons. Ask any farmer if it’s getting too dry in the south of Ireland. It’s a complete washout. People like molly should not be entertained without facts and figures and also alternatives to her argument.
Yeah, quick, lets ask any farmer, anywhere in the world, if they’ve been seeing more extreme weather in the last decade or so. (Hint: The answer will be either “Yes” or “I’ve not been farming that long”).
Another great example of the Irish self-hate bias! No mention of the right of Americans to wastefully drive gas guzzlers, Canadian wastefulness in extracting shale oil or Chinese hunger for burning dirty coal ad inf. Paddy is attacking Paddy for producing less than 0.14% of the world’s greenhouse gas thus ignoring the real culprits and arguing for Paddy to shoot himself in the foot. Evidence if were needed that Irish journalism (like banking) is infected with mad cow disease!
While it’s a good point that those countries are being wasteful, telling others what you see they’re doing wrong (especially when Paddy has his own wrongdoings going on) often just gets people’s backs up. It doesn’t help the situation and distracts from what Irish people can actually change directly: the .14% of emissions as you put it.
Plus it doesn’t have to be a foot-shooting exercise, there is profitability in them their renewables.
While it’s a good point that those countries are being wasteful, telling others what you see they’re doing wrong (especially when Paddy has his own wrongdoings going on) often just gets people’s backs up. It doesn’t help the situation and distracts from what Irish people can actually change directly: the .14% of emissions as you put it.
Plus it doesn’t have to be a foot-shooting exercise, there is profitability in them there renewables.
Andrew – gross ineptitude is perhaps the best description of the “green movement” world wide and especially true of Ireland. It is not about cattle that are reared in Ireland to provide food for other countries, it is about consumerism and the mad unsustainable snobbish behaviours of humans in general. When the “airy fairy green loons” realise where the problem lies they might be able to solve it and the label of “gross ineptitude” might disappear.
Insects contain as much protein as beef and don’t produce any emissions, in years to come we will be ordering a plate of insects rather than a stake!
At which point, we’ll be doing what the majority of the human race already do.
BTW, pass those red M&M’s, would you? Gotta have me some of those insects…
Insect ‘meat’ is a more credible solution than we might imagine. Insects use a fraction of the space and feed resources of large animals. They give off close to zero methane and other harmful gases. They contain nearly twice as much protein per kilo and almost no fat.
A recent project at the Royal College of Art in London tried to imagine ‘cricket mince’ and ‘caterpillar croquettes’ on the prepared food aisle at your local Tesco: http://cargocollective.com/ento/Products
No worse than whatever foul grisel goes into a Supermac’s burger in my view.
Interesting link derrynairn, I may just go and buy some!
Ate insects regularly when living in Thailand.
No different from eating prawns or periwinkles.
some local farmers used to raise insects in cages for protein in their diet. Very cheap and convenient food.
Molly our Co2 emissions are relatively minuscule. Climate change is already happening and is more than likely irreversible. We however, have some of the worlds best real estate to deal with it, with our northern latitude and relatively high elevation. I would refute your drought stricken southern farm theory as folly. We should absolutely concentrate on departing from our fossil fuel dependence but mainly because we need to prepare for the transition as such power sources run out. The analogy of Co2 emissions and our economic depression is little more than a parlour trick designed to shed light on topics that are utterly unrelated.
CO2 not Co2 sorry to be pedantic, Carbon Dioxide (1 carbon 2 oxygen) not 2 cobalts
It’s not the governments fault, it’s ours. We vote them in, they want to stay in. If you want them to tackle climate it means higher taxes. We don’t want that.
Oh give me a break, who cares……
It’s true to say that cows (or more properly, their complementary load of methanogenic bacteria) release merhane to the armosphere.
Yet there is a duplicity here. The figures for the impact of agriculure on global warming are derived from
making many assumptions which may or may not be true, and which this writer is disingenuously glossing over.
Grain growing accounts for, by far, the largest carbon impact of all human food production. The calculations for livestock usually include a “grain loading” which is not appropriate to include in a calculation for grass-fed herds like Ireland’s. Pastured animals also CREATE soil, an important carbon sink, while grain crops steadily destroy soil and replace it with petroleum based feetilisers. I would request the writer do separate calculations on the impacts of grain-fed v grass-fed herds, and the im
…pacts of spil-building practices versus soil-destroying practices.
Is she suggesting that Irish livestock farms, which suit local conditions should be converted to less suitable and more destructive practices?
Or that we should let our hillsides go to fire-hazard whin-strewn undegrazed wilderness?
Some useful practical thinking is in order. And truthful use of statistics.
*trigger finger*
We are currently jn a race between human ingenuity and human stupidity ! We Have an economic system that requires perpetual growth to survive in a finite world. That is why we do need to find ways to reduce the farting of cows – we are getting ourselves into complex problems that require complex solutions so yes jay we do need the scientists.
Not to overly dwell on the farting thing but imagine the climate change when dinosaur s were at it .no wonder they had to go.
That’s pretty much exactly what happened to them Eilish, more than once (there was more than one extinction event – they were around for a few million years, we’ve only been here for at most a hundred thousand). Asteroid impacts, ice ages, supervolcano eruptions; all (ultimately) forms of climate change, species couldn’t adapt to the new climate and died out.
Basic facts are that the banking crisis WAS a man made problem and “Climate Change” is not. The pseudo-science involved in this modern myth is nothing more than researchers with no real work being able to get easy funding for almost anything they want as long as they make a link (No matter how tenuous) to climate. Climate cycles have been around as long as the planet and is a natural cycle and to mention Al Gore adds insult to injury… This is the man that tried to convince everyone he invented the internet while he was running for president and believes in climate change so much that he makes absolutely no attempt to reduce his own so called “Carbon Footprint” You only have to look at his house. I’m all for green energy if it means cheaper energy, but the funny thing is that when I looked at the prices here in Ireland, If you want to purchase solely renewable source electricity it’s the most expensive electricity you can buy!!! SCAM SCAM SCAM
Once upon a time Jay, folks would have argued with you about that.
These days, they just recognise you as a quack.
But here, go read the actual evidence for yourself. No reason you have to remain a quack.
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
Mark, the words ‘head’, ‘wall’, ‘banging’ spring to mind. Honestly The Journal is not the place to be if you are looking for rational debate, science and factual comments. I’m with you on this and agree with the science supporting your argument but the majority of comments here are not worth responding to. Just hold on to the thought that The Journal commenters are not representative of the Irish people (hopefully).
Those are your words, Damocles. In 2007, all the main parties had manifestos based on 4-6% economic growth – why, if not to get elected? nThe astuteness of the Irish electorate (or indeed of any democracy) is hard to judge and I am not making such an assessment. My comment is about democracy…which is littered with short termism etc. I am not sure what the answer is… But we are all paying the cost of poor leadership. Also the standard of public political debate…. Someone once said..’everything is political, except politics, which is personal’ (or some such). The personal slanging matches that often characterise Dail discussions and TV debates illustrate this well.
Just paraphrasing.
The politicians might be just after the quick electoral hit but it’s the electorate that give it to them, right?
If the electorate were half as well capable of seeing the grand vision that you do then they’d abandon such politicians for those who offer the long term solutions you see, surely?
But you say that the politicians, and hence the electorate, go for the quick hit. Incapable and unwilling to see the grand vision …
Maybe you’re right, maybe we need a long term vision from some sort of ‘new’ politician.
People seem to oppose austerity but support Green austerity. This agricultural plan is in fact anything but short termism, quite the opposite, and will provide jobs and exports. When Molly says we are on target for the reduction in car emissions, that is down to the recession. We won’t get out of the recession unless industries, or agriculture grow and that will involve more emissions, unless we have technical solutions on emissions instead of solutions to reduce consumption or production.
Economic contraction is not a solution, it creates human misery. Molly seems to suggest that we should not try to implement this report, and not compete for more exports in beef or cattle, exports which will be replaced elsewhere at a possible cost to the environment anyway, “good” for Ireland’s Green reports, but neutral, or worse, for the world’s. Thats a mugs game.
Instead of austerity Greenism we could try to reduce emissions per cow. I was going to suggest it wasn’t past the ingenuity of humans to reduce cow emissions, or trap them, and in fact it has been done, just not implemented.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/mar/22/germany.climatechange
We need a world government to control population and climate change. Thankfully it’s well on the way now even if they are just the super rich banksters.
Surprised so many people gave thumbs down to the idea of a World Government.
So many of today’s problems are global problems and require global solutions.
while some aspects of climate change, over the long run, should give us pause. the alarmist mentality that it is any sort “crisis” has been vastly overblown.
simply put, those who advocate this crisis cannot scientifically support their own arguments in any form of fair, honest public debate.
add in the fact that, if you are a professor or scientist, and you don’t advocate for the current climate change junk science. you’ll very soon find yourself out of a job. and ridiculed by peers.
many researchers and professors simply follow the research funding. which, for the most part, only flows into those who advocate for climate science, to the point where evidence against such is ridiculed. most of the true scientific work is heralded by retired members of the climate science community, no longer forced to provide one side only of the argument in order to receive funding and keep their university jobs (after all professors and scientists who don’t bring in funding aren’t of much use to the commercial income of any school).
it gets so bad, that even students who propose otherwise in their own papers are automatically failed by some professors, regardless of the merits of their research. simply for going against the status quo of the governing “consensus” with their views.
Climate change is a massive lie!!
That is a somewhat unsubstantiated claim. At least the issue is in dispute and evidence is suggestive that something significant is happening our climate (melting polar ice, atypical weather patterns globally over the last few years). While it is true the evidence is not without it’s detractors, I for one think it’s taking an unnecessary risk with our and future generations well being to deny the possibility of climate change.
human evolution favours the forces of psychological denial
May sound like a contradiction, but the carbon impact of building and running and transporting a new car outweighs the impact of continuing to run an older “dirtier” car thats already been built and shipped. Especially hybrids. They use hard to get rare earth minerals much more than standard diesel or petrol cars.
Those are your words, Damocles. In 2007, all the main parties had manifestos based on 4-6% economic growth – why, if not to get elected? nThe astuteness of the Irish electorate (or indeed of any democracy) is hard to judge and I am not making such an assessment. My comment is about democracy…which is littered with short termism etc. I am not sure what the answer is… But we are all paying the cost of poor leadership. Also the standard of public political debate…. Someone once said..’everything is political, except politics, which is personal’ (or some such). The personal slanging matches that often characterise Dail discussions and TV debates illustrate this well.
Mark ,as will happen,life s like that
Actually, *death and extinction of the species* is like that Eilish.
Thing is, while we currently couldn’t do very much about asteroid impacts or supervolcano eruptions, we’ve already proven with the Montreal Protocol, we can control our own impact on the environment. And if we’re going to go extinct as a species, let’s do it because of something massive and beyond our control, not because we couldn’t stop a few cows belching…
@mark….Oh it must be true it’s on nasa’s website… Governments want you to believe it so they can tax it. I’d rather hear it from independent scientists
If you want independent scientific reports, look up the publications of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change..body of work reviewed is probably as extensive as possible to synthesise the existing research on the core issues. nTake it as a starter point to find additional literature to do your own reading around the issues. nObviously no one source can be unbiased enough so if you read widely you can come to your own conclusions. n http://www.ipcc.ch
http://carbon-based-ghg.blogspot.ie/2010/11/leaking-siberian-ice-raises-tricky.html when this happens were all shagged.cattle, insects people everything.
Yup, not to mention what happens if the Ross Shelf lets go or if the gulf stream shifts because of climate change. Mind you, at that point, as we sit here slowly freezing (our latitude is *cold* folks, if it wasn’t for the stream, we’d normally see winters like the one in 2010/11), all we’d here is “stupid scientists, call this global *warming* do you?”…
Is it still raining?
Ooo yeahh
have your say