Disability and the 2010 Equality Act: Relevance in personal injury claims

1区 医学 Q1 Medicine Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery Pub Date : 2017-04-01 DOI:10.1302/2048-0105.62.360523
J. McQuater
{"title":"Disability and the 2010 Equality Act: Relevance in personal injury claims","authors":"J. McQuater","doi":"10.1302/2048-0105.62.360523","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Medico-legal experts instructed to write reports for use in personal injury claims may be perplexed by the number of those instructions which ask for an opinion about whether the claimant is disabled.\n\nOrthopaedic experts may be concerned that labelling the claimant as disabled could be regarded as a somewhat pessimistic approach. However, lawyers seeking an opinion on this point do so for valid technical reasons which this article will explore.\n\nTherefore, the purpose of this article is to explain why lawyers so often ask medical experts whether they consider that the claimant can properly be described as disabled according to the criteria set down in the 2010 Equality Act. It is hoped that this will enable medical experts to appreciate the significance of an opinion on this point, particularly so far as estimating claims for future loss of earnings is concerned.\n\nAfter outlining what might be described as the traditional method of calculating future loss of earnings, the article will turn to the modern method increasingly being adopted by the courts in appropriate cases and will seek to explain why the concept of disability is so important to that methodology.\n\nIt is hoped that this analysis will help to explain why so many medico-legal instructions now raise the question of disability and will help to put such instructions into proper context.\n\nWhere an injured person has continuing symptoms, even if these are not particularly significant, this may be important in terms of their future employability and may have a bearing on their future earning potential.\n\nThere are, of course, cases where the injuries have an immediate, and continuing, effect on earnings and employment prospects. A more insidious problem is that encountered by the injured person who gets back to work (perhaps doing the same job) but is likely to face …","PeriodicalId":50250,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery","volume":"612 1","pages":"40-42"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1302/2048-0105.62.360523","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Medico-legal experts instructed to write reports for use in personal injury claims may be perplexed by the number of those instructions which ask for an opinion about whether the claimant is disabled. Orthopaedic experts may be concerned that labelling the claimant as disabled could be regarded as a somewhat pessimistic approach. However, lawyers seeking an opinion on this point do so for valid technical reasons which this article will explore. Therefore, the purpose of this article is to explain why lawyers so often ask medical experts whether they consider that the claimant can properly be described as disabled according to the criteria set down in the 2010 Equality Act. It is hoped that this will enable medical experts to appreciate the significance of an opinion on this point, particularly so far as estimating claims for future loss of earnings is concerned. After outlining what might be described as the traditional method of calculating future loss of earnings, the article will turn to the modern method increasingly being adopted by the courts in appropriate cases and will seek to explain why the concept of disability is so important to that methodology. It is hoped that this analysis will help to explain why so many medico-legal instructions now raise the question of disability and will help to put such instructions into proper context. Where an injured person has continuing symptoms, even if these are not particularly significant, this may be important in terms of their future employability and may have a bearing on their future earning potential. There are, of course, cases where the injuries have an immediate, and continuing, effect on earnings and employment prospects. A more insidious problem is that encountered by the injured person who gets back to work (perhaps doing the same job) but is likely to face …
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
残疾和2010年平等法案:人身伤害索赔的相关性
受指示编写用于人身伤害索赔的报告的法医专家可能会对要求就索赔人是否残疾提出意见的指示的数量感到困惑。骨科专家可能担心,给索赔人贴上残疾标签可能会被视为一种悲观的做法。然而,在这一点上寻求意见的律师这样做是出于有效的技术原因,本文将对此进行探讨。因此,本文的目的是解释为什么律师经常询问医学专家,他们是否认为根据2010年《平等法》规定的标准,可以适当地将索赔人描述为残疾人。希望这将使医学专家认识到关于这一点的意见的重要性,特别是就估计未来收入损失的索赔要求而言。在概述了可能被称为计算未来收入损失的传统方法之后,本文将转向法院在适当案件中日益采用的现代方法,并将设法解释为什么残疾的概念对这种方法如此重要。希望这一分析将有助于解释为什么现在如此多的医学法律指示提出残疾问题,并有助于将这些指示置于适当的背景中。如果受伤的人有持续的症状,即使这些症状不是特别严重,这可能对他们未来的就业能力很重要,并可能对他们未来的收入潜力产生影响。当然,在某些情况下,受伤会对收入和就业前景产生直接而持续的影响。一个更阴险的问题是,受伤的人回到工作岗位(也许是做同样的工作),但可能面临……
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
In Patients with Bilateral Knee Osteoarthritis, Cementless and Cemented Total Knee Arthroplasties Did Not Differ for Functional Outcomes at 2 Years Implant-Positioning and Patient Factors Associated with Acromial and Scapular Spine Fractures After Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty In Older Patients with an Unreconstructible Distal Humeral Fracture, Elbow Hemiarthroplasty and Total Elbow Arthroplasty Did Not Differ for Function at ≥2 Years Newton C. McCollough III Robert G. (Bob) Volz 1932-2023
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1