Evidence from: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmtran/117/117.pdf On the subject of evidence: ‘We broadly support the Government’s proposals on improving medical reports but would like to go further and require whiplash claimants to provide more information in support of their claim, such as proof that they saw a medical practitioner shortly after their accident. In addition, we recommend that the Government bring forward recommendations to reduce the time period during which whiplash claims can be made.’ ‘In our view, the bar to receiving compensation in whiplash cases should be raised.’ ‘ There should be a presumption against accepting claims where such information is not provided.’ ‘We support the proposal that there should be an accreditation scheme for medical practitioners (who need not all be doctors) who provide medical reports in relation to whiplash claims. We also agree that these reports should be availa
PPI mis-selling has led to wholesale action to reimburse policy-holders. What if the same was true of motor insurance? Paying out claims on an indemnity policy can only be legitimate if the payment can be shown to indemnify. Other payments are gratuitous. Should the cost of gratuitous payments be borne by the general motorist who has no say in it? Well, for good or ill, the insurance is compulsory, so the answer is yes. If the insurer pays, then he passes the bill on to the motorist. But has this happened? Is there gratuity when there should be indemnity? Consider whiplash. Science has, even by medical standards, emphatically shown that physiotherapy provides no foreseeable effect on indemnity. Why should the motorist pay for this? Answer – because insurers do. The bigger problem though is that medical opinion about causation, diagnosis and prognosis has been accepted as legal fact. For whiplash, this is demonstrably unsound. The medical approach is not consistent with legal fac
Evidence from: SWD(2013) 202 final Public consultation on the new EU occupational safety and health policy framework Responses due 26/08/2013 The document confidently asserts that a central framework on H&S has been essential. The usual harmonisation/leadership argument. Injury accident rates have shown an improvement, it says, but no-one quite knows how to measure them. The impression is that some nations would do far less on H&S were it not for the centralised approach. But, what can be done about SMEs? Has anyone done anything about nano materials, endocrine disruptors and EMFs? The document focuses on the ‘soft’ issues of stress, MSD and ageing. BUT makes a special case for preventable cancer. It also confirms that H&S has been adopted by the wider public health agenda: ‘With regard to public health policy, the degree of coherence between public health and health and safety at work is high. Measures were taken in the areas of tobacco in the workplace and mental he