ACCforum: Grant Rankin's Case - ACCforum

Jump to content

  • 13 Pages +
  • « First
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Grant Rankin's Case Causation and other issues

#241 User is offline   Grant-Mac 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 482
  • Joined: 14-November 12

Posted 12 October 2017 - 05:57 AM

Quote

View PostAlan Thomas, on 10 October 2017 - 03:34 PM, said:

In any event your strategy would require the same medical report that I proposed anyway plus you have the extra burden of proving that the treatment provider was medically incompetent to the extent that they would be struck off which is not something that I think you are aware of as to how difficult that really is particularly with this passage of time whereby the medical practitioner or be able to quite safely say that they did the best they could with the information they have the time etc etc.


Incorrect. ACC is a no fault system.

Grant





 Alan Thomas, on 11 October 2017 - 10:22 AM, said:

Of what relevance does a no fault system have to your are saying that my proposition is incorrect?

The ACC scheme has absolutely nothing to do with the medical Council censoring a registered medical practitioner. Of course the medical Council will find fault if a doctor has not complied with his duty


The underlined sentence.

There is no need to prove medical negligence. ACC is a 'no fault system'. This lowers the bar significantly for the claimant.

Grant
0

#242 User is offline   Grant-Mac 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 482
  • Joined: 14-November 12

Posted 12 October 2017 - 06:01 AM

 Alan Thomas, on 11 October 2017 - 10:11 AM, said:

On this we agree, there was an inadequacy of a diagnosis.

So on this line of agreement we both agree that a proper diagnosis is needed. I say the diagnosis is needed for the determination of causal nexus to the accident event while you are wanting a diagnosis to confirm that there was an inadequacy of a diagnosis.

The diagnosis would need to identify the damaged structures and will also identify that those damaged structures did not occur naturally but are consistent with the accident event. Now of course soft tissue injuries of this type will not show up on an x-ray or a low resolution CT or MRI scan.


You almost have it.

Today it is too late to obtain a diagnosis of what the medical situation was in 2006.

What we do have is the evidence of what was done in 2006. What we do have is the legal standard of what should have been done in 2006. The difference between the two is our case.

Grant
0

#243 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7686
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 12 October 2017 - 09:35 AM

Grant I understand that you infer medical incompetency by the fact that this fellow did not have a comprehensive diagnosis in the first instance. However it is all too easy for the medical professional to claim that it was not possible to make a comprehensive diagnosis for all manner of different reasons. I cannot see any actual evidence to support your position despite the fact that it could be argued that some form of evidence must exist. I am concerned that you might not be able to reach this threshold. Perhaps you could explain..
0

#244 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7686
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 12 October 2017 - 09:37 AM

 Grant-Mac, on 12 October 2017 - 05:57 AM, said:

The underlined sentence.

There is no need to prove medical negligence. ACC is a 'no fault system'. This lowers the bar significantly for the claimant.

Grant


With ACC being a no fault system that is to do with someone causing an injury.

With regards to medical negligence that is something for the medical Council to address, not the ACC unless medical negligence is proven AND the medical negligence has resulted in an actual injury causing disability.

The no fault system seems to be limited to not blaming the drunk that rammed his car into your family killing them all.
0

#245 User is offline   Grant-Mac 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 482
  • Joined: 14-November 12

Posted 12 October 2017 - 10:07 AM

 Alan Thomas, on 12 October 2017 - 09:37 AM, said:

With ACC being a no fault system that is to do with someone causing an injury.

With regards to medical negligence that is something for the medical Council to address, not the ACC unless medical negligence is proven AND the medical negligence has resulted in an actual injury causing disability.

The no fault system seems to be limited to not blaming the drunk that rammed his car into your family killing them all.



Incorrect. See M v ACC (30/2009) (DC).

Grant
0

#246 User is offline   Grant-Mac 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 482
  • Joined: 14-November 12

Posted 12 October 2017 - 10:08 AM

 Alan Thomas, on 12 October 2017 - 09:35 AM, said:

Grant I understand that you infer medical incompetency by the fact that this fellow did not have a comprehensive diagnosis in the first instance. However it is all too easy for the medical professional to claim that it was not possible to make a comprehensive diagnosis for all manner of different reasons. I cannot see any actual evidence to support your position despite the fact that it could be argued that some form of evidence must exist. I am concerned that you might not be able to reach this threshold. Perhaps you could explain..


Which I will come to in due course.

Grant
0

Share this topic:


  • 13 Pages +
  • « First
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users