RAF civilian worker's injury

[anotheoldgit]

Was this Women's injury worth this amount of compensation? And if so, should not our troops also be worth the same?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles /news/news.html?in_article_id=471700&in_page_i d=1770

[gina32]

i read this in the sunday papers and i was disgusted, she gets that large amount and our service workers who get far worse injuries in the line of duty, get buttons, something should be done, how can they possibly justify such a vast amount

[dyli795]

It just beggars belief doesn't it. It's just one example of so many inbalances in the British way of looking at things. It makes you wonder is there actualy anyone in charge with a basic sense of justice? This case, amongst so many others, is so out of kilter with basic common sense.

[MrBen5]

Hmmm, apparently they thought she was a muslim, but by the time they realised their error, it was too late to rectify...

[MrBen5]

Actually to be fair to the critics, i agree with them this time.
It is an insult to every service person and their families fighting for us around the globe.
Pathetic...

[ruby27]

If it is true this seems grossly unfair to compare RSI of a thumb, to loss of a leg, with the thumb injury being eligible for more compensation.
However, I have tried an internet search to obtain some corroborative information from another news source. All I get is some clearly weird sites with union jacks all over them.
So is its make believe. Or my research skills are rubbish.

[Gromit]

The Daily Mail report is a bit misleading.

She was diagnosed with de Quervain's tenosynovitis (which is similar RSI) which medical experts instructed by both the claimant and the Ministry of Defence agreed was a condition which is rarely a work-related upper limb disorder.

As a result the MoD fought the claim through the courts and lost. The claimant did not recieve �484,000. That figure is made up of her damages and the very hefty legal costs.

[gina32]

the legal costs amount to about �50.000 so still a heavy sum after that

[Gromit]

gina32

I searched extensively for a breakdown, where did you get the �50,000 figure from?

[Gromit]

This info is also helpful

"Compensation payout for RAF clerk
Several newspapers have published a story claiming that an RAF clerk received a compensation payout of �484,000 after having sued the MOD. The payout to the RAF clerk represents compensation in respect to loss of earnings over their lifetime and includes not only their RAF career but also their civilian career as their condition prevented them from working. It is misleading to make a direct comparison between this payment and payments made to personnel wounded in operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is because the lump sum payment represents only a part of the overall compensation package, as individuals also receive a regular tax-free payment for life for serious injuries. For example, a 25-year-old man with seven years' service and a salary of �25,000 who loses his arm at the elbow, would receive an immediate lump sum of �57,000 plus a tax-free guaranteed income of over �16,000 per annum for life, which would rise in line with inflation. This could be worth significantly more than �490,000 over the individual's lifetime. These payments do not interfere with a person's right to claim civil damages against the MOD where they believe that the injury/illness or death was a result of negligence on the part of the MOD."

http://www.blogs.mod.uk/defence_news/

[anotheoldgit]

Gromit You did not search very extensively because it was in the news report, that I posted.

Legal sources estimated that her total costs for the action would be unlikely to amount to more than �50,000, meaning she would pocket about �434,000.

And she did not have a RAF career, she was only employed by the RAF in a civilian capacity.

[gina32]

gromit,like anotheroldgit said it was in the news report, trying opening your eyes!

[Gromit]

"Legal sources estimated' means the Daily Mail lawyer guessed. The true figure hasn't been revealed.

I did not say she had a career, the post in italics was from the MoD.

[gina32]

gromit i didnt read it in the mail, i read it in one of the sunday papers, besides why would i put an amount if i had no idea what it was????

[Gromit]

gina32

AOG pointed out it was in the Daily Mail news report that he posted, and you seem to agree in your following post, that is why I thought that was where you read it.

I thought �50,000 legal cost was very low and I just wanted to find the source of the information, but as you cannot remember where you saw it, we will never know.

[gina32]

i didnt say i couldnt remember where i read it, i said it was in one of the sunday papers.

[anotheoldgit]

Oh dear, your nick-picking really underminds your credibility now Gromit. Just admit you have lost your argument for a change.

gina32 said about �50,000 and the report said unlikely to amount to more than �50,000, (Daily Mail hired Lawer or not) without being presented with the bill will we never know? so we must accept an estimate, that is everyone but you Gromit.

You have a guess eh Gromit? Just like you guessed I was a 70 odd year old Librarian.

[Gromit]

You're not a 70 odd year old Librarian!

Agreed, it has got a bit scrappy at the end. Sorry.

I do agree the women's compensation is excessive even if half the figure quoted is legal costs.

[gina32]

half of what figure quoted?