Originally Posted by el_richo (Post 8672211)

Reads like you're advocating lying to me in order to get as much from the "system" as possible.

Independent medical assessments will often be carried out to assess the individuals status


I'm often confused by these types of statements. How do people calculate, financially, pain and suffering etc, on top of, for example, therapy/rehab costs?

.

Originally Posted by nikki dreaming (Post 8672381)

...known as meat charts...

Originally Posted by nikki dreaming (Post 8672381)

...based upon case law of similar injuries that the courts have awarded

Originally Posted by el_richo (Post 8672438)

Brilliant :D



But how did they come up with these initial figures?

Does it work like this?

"Oh i've been stressed by it all but $10k would sort me out. Oh, and $5k would help me get over some of the pain of the injury"

Originally Posted by amrskipro (Post 8671696)

Actually - first do not imply that anything I would write would recommend lying and cheating - you do not know me, my background or my morals and ethics. I could easily conclude that such thoughtless comments just confirm to other forums users that you match a certain character profile. Keep your 'clever' repartee to yourself in future.

This is a forum aimed at helping UK Expats and as a rule we (British - certainly English) tend to understate things which is a serious cultural difference when one is no longer dealing with UK medical system but a North American one that tends to take what one says literally with no reference to tone or dry under statement. Medical professionals take notes, especially for reporting progress to WCB and if your notes just say 'fine' when actually you are in some level of life disrupting pain for most of the day then you are not doing yourself any favours.

So not lying or cheating but an accurate relaying of the fact that most serious injuries create a significant level of pain, disruption and general reduction of life quality and lost recreation opportunities during rehab that WCB does not recognise and compensate for.

Saying that you cannot sue someone because there is an Act is as lame as saying you cannot sue a ski hill because the skier signed a waiver. In fact you sound like you work for WCB.

At the end of the day anyone can challenge anything the general law of natural justice generally takes precedence over any other law, it just takes deep pockets, an imagination slightly broader than yours and a good lawyer with some cajones and experience in challenging the law, public bodies and litigation.

Originally Posted by Alan2005 (Post 8671693)

I would say that prohibiting individuals from taking companies to court for negligence is not a fit and proper thing for governments to do. WBC seems to be as much a protection racket as it is insurance if individuals are actively denied the ability to pursue incompetent/negligent employers through the courts.

I don't know why people defend the crown corps so much. I can't think of a single instance of one that should not just be replaced by the private sector operating under licence using the right legislative framework (the CMHC is the worst of the bunch - propping up bank profits with my taxes - those buggers). How would you feel if an accounting crown corporation was legislated into existence; everyone has to pay taxes after all but not everyone can afford an accountant, so it would only be fair;)

Originally Posted by nikki dreaming (Post 8672475)

basically a judge decides how credible he thinks the person is then decides how much he thinks is a fair settlement, normally based on precedent of his fellow judge friend who gave an award before for similar injury and it goes from there:rolleyes:

Originally Posted by el_richo (Post 8672117)

To clarify, do you mean your cheeks or your hole? ;)

.

Originally Posted by markan (Post 8673085)

Sorry its me,I meant to say my horse.

Originally Posted by Almost Canadian (Post 8672671)

You are talking out of your bottom. The Act precludes employees from suing their employers following a work accident. No lawyer can get around this, it is a jurisdictional thing.

Originally Posted by Almost Canadian (Post 8672674)

Employers rarely pay, their insurers do. From the employer`s point of view, does it really matter if they are paying premiums to a private insurer, or a state one?

Originally Posted by Alan2005 (Post 8673150)

Ultimately because I don't see the states role as being the de-facto insurer to private companies; moreover it seems that the line between what is insured privately and what is left to the state seems arbitrary and contradictory. As I said to JonboyE, I also don't think the state should be in the business of protecting private companies from legal action when they are negligent/incompetent.

I'm not an employer and I work in an office, so the chances of this ever effecting me are practically zero. But should I ever get electrocuted by the coke machine I would expect my day in court!

Originally Posted by jericho (Post 8673165)

There was a period back in 2002/03 where many UK companies were forced out of business because they either could not afford or were unable to obtain Employers Liability insurance. EL insurance is a mandatory insurance in the UK (ie/ employers must have it), but claims costs are way in excess of the premiums.
I actually quite like the system here, whereby WCB is provided by the Govt. I dont know what the premiums are, but you'd probably be paying a lot more in insurance premiums if it was similar to the UK model.

Originally Posted by Alan2005 (Post 8673175)

If they can't afford to insure or cover their liabilities they shouldn't be in business. I don't expect them to get an indirect state subsidy.

Originally Posted by jericho (Post 8673241)

In some instances, it wasnt a case of affordability- they just couldnt get insurance. This was just after 9/11 when commercial insurance rates went through the roof and insurance capacity was severely limited.

The system here works. You might not like it, but whether it's the Canadian model, or the UK model, you're gonna pay anyway- be it through increased cost of services, higher taxes or whatever.

The UK model is an absolute mess. It's seriously abused by employee's, who claim for every slip and fall, and insurers spend years fighting over who's liable for what. In the meantime, the people with serious &/or valid claims have to wait literally years to receive any compensation.






Also, I'd just like to apologize for my first reply on this thread. I didnt read the OP's comments properly and responded too soon. Glad to hear he is on the mend, and apologies for being a tool.

Originally Posted by amrskipro (Post 8673109)

You are both rude and ignorant - you can challenge the 'law' itself if you feel you have a valid case. Time consuming, expensive and not much chance of success but possible all the same.