And she wins about $80,000 (plus attorneys’ fees) for her hurt feelings. Mrs. G delayed her caesarean a few minutes to have a pre-op cigarette; her coughing made her epidural more difficult, and Mrs. G and was criticized by anesthesiologist Dr. A, who noted the increased likelihood of surviving to see her daughter’s wedding if Mrs. G quit smoking. (Arthur Martin, “Doctor’s smoking jibe wins mother £44,000 payout”, Daily Mail, Dec. 21; Kevin MD blog). UK medical compensation has grown 30,000 percent in under ten years. The Daily Mail story also notes:
An employment tribunal heard that David Portman, 27, took 137 days off over a five-year period because of a series of ‘unfortunate accidents’.
When he took yet another week off because of his pet’s demise, bosses decided enough was enough and sacked him.
But Mr Portman won his claim for unfair dismissal – and this week walked away with undisclosed compensation reckoned to be at least £10,000.
The tribunal ruled his absences from work were all legitimate and mostly caused by injuries suffered in the course of his duties.
Mr Portman, who was based with Royal Mail in Sheffield, put his months off duty down to bad luck.
‘I felt really aggrieved when I was sacked without them taking into account my particular circumstances,’ he said.
8 Comments
If I had only known. My doctor hassles me every time I visit, to quit smoking. However we do have it down to a brief, “Still smoking?”,
“Yep”,
“You should stop”,
“Yeah I know”,
“What’s the problem today?”
So much for wanting to emulate English law, eh?
Sarcasm aside, this again confirms my belief that the problem isn’t with the legal system, but with society as a whole. What can we do to fix that?
Loser pays doesn’t look so good in this situation, does it?
This gets even better if you remember that lawyers also want to sue Doctors for not getting thier patients to stop smoking.
Good point, VMS. What we need is a stricter standard for judges to throw out frivolous cases, before we implement a policy that makes suing even more of a lottery. Loser-pays has its place, but only if the right side always wins.
Ryan Frank made the bst point so far.
As usual thse days, the system’s goal seems to be to put anyone with larg amounts of money in a “darned if you don’t, danged if you do” situation… the better to tak their money from them.
Is “137 days off over a five-year period” unusual for most, or was that meant “in addition to normal leave”?
137 days off means a little over one day every two weeks, which is less than I get in combined vacation and sick leave. I do not use all of it, but it is credited to me, and I would be rather displeased if I was fired for using my sick days. An extra 137 days beyond what is normally allowed would be a different story.
Considering that until recently I was getting 20 days a year in vacation, sick leave, and “floating holidays”, 27 a year for several years would b a pretty noticable problem. I know people who get even less, and yes, that is a professional, salaried position.
And, from an employer’s point of view, the “particular circumstances” really don’t matter… what matters is that they are paying for a service (his work) which thy aren’t getting. If you were paying for something you weren’t gtting, wll, you’d be pretty put out, too, I’d wager.