Guernsey had generally been planning to follow a similar path to Jersey, but now a “technical panel” is being established to work out the best way forward.
There were conflicting opinions on the proposals, which led to stark warnings from doctor’s representatives that if claims were not capped and a major payout was needed it might not be covered and could then lead to an exodus of doctors.
One family whose [child] is severely disabled said in their consultation response: “We felt deep concern and alarm when we learned of the Policy & Resources Committee’s consultation on the personal injury discount rate and damages. We are also concerned that this consultation, which proposes wide-ranging reform to the law on personal injury damages and which would have a devastating impact on [redacted] if introduced in the terms proposed, has been quietly published with very little (if any) publicity to enable those impacted, like us and our [child], to comment.
“Having read the consultation in its entirety, it is evident that the law is being proposed not to protect injured and vulnerable persons and would, in fact, unfairly discriminate against those who have damage (permanent in the case of [redacted] through no fault of their own.
“We are not legal experts, but it appears as though each section has been cherry picked from other jurisdictions to suit the consultation’s purpose without consistency or connection. This seems to have the effect of penalising those that have been injured with no regard for their wellbeing or quality of life.”
They were worried that the proposals on discount rates would lead to damages running out during the lifetime of their child.
And they said a cap on damages would have a ‘catastrophic impact” on their child, “adding insult to injury for no legitimate reason”.
“[redacted]’s life has been irreparably altered by the healthcare professionals who failed in their basic duty of care. With the worry and uncertainty of future constantly on our minds, we need comfort and reassurance that he will receive full compensation, to put him back as far as money can in the position he would have been in had the terrible medical negligence not occurred.”
Another response came from the family of someone left paralysed from the waist down who will be reliant on a wheelchair in the future and has lifelong care needs.
“At the moment, [redacted] is receiving specialist spinal cord injury rehabilitation at [redacted] Hospital on the UK mainland. [They are] making remarkable progress thanks to his own determination and resilience, and with the support of a fantastic team of therapists. The next challenge for us is finding suitable accommodation that can be adapted to meet [redacted] needs when [they are] ready to return to Guernsey. It is heart- wrenching that [they] will never return to our family home.”
They had “deep concerns” when they heard about P&R’s proposals on the personal injury discount rate and damages.
They also fear damages running out in their lifetime.
“[They] would be left with no option but to turn to the States for support if [their] injury damages run out. Based on the limited support [they have] received so far from the States, that is clearly not going to be an acceptable situation.”
They mirrored the other responses concern about the cap on damages.
“With the worry and uncertainty of [redacted]’s future constantly on our minds, we need comfort and reassurance that [they] will receive full compensation from the insurer of the individual that has irreversibly changed [their] life, to put [them] back as far as money can in the position [they] would have been in had this devastating accident not happened.”
P&R published the results of the consultation online with the document dated May, but they have only just come to light because of an amendment it placed to the Government Work PLan which is being debated today.
“Having considered the consultation responses, and the underlying intention of the original Policy Letter, the Committee considers that further work is necessary to ensure that the final application of the Law most appropriately meets the islands’ requirements,” the amendment states.
“With this in mind, rather than adopt the discount rate used in Jersey, a technical panel is now being established, to consider what rate(s) might be suitable and appropriate for Guernsey. Once this panel has had an opportunity to consider the issues arising it will report back to the Committee which will then determine how to proceed.”
The proposed changes result from a States report agreed in 2019.