Pre action order relating to injury claim.

[des8]

An injured policeman (or anybody for that matter) can return to work if there is suitable employment available
So a policeman returns for desk duties only, even if he has a broken leg (as long as doctors ok it)

[steveeasy]

Point taken. He went to work following the accident with crutches and a brace on light duties for a week. 6 days after the accident he went to the doctor. just like the hospital, no sign of pain, no mention of injuries to arms. he then was signed off ffor 3 weeks according to the medical report or was this a typo too. like the dates being wrong.. but he still goes to work. why did the doctor sign him off for 3 weeks. ive requested the medical report and sick note. they would not show the sick note. Did the Dr sign him off and did they ok he was to return to work. it does not make sense. he was either injured or not injured. they would not sign him off and then instantly ok him to return to work. no mention of a sick note for 3 weeks in GP records..

Ive requested the sick note again. what if it never existed and he was mistaken!!!. we will see.

Steveeasy

[steveeasy]

Hi Des8
ok had response to the sick note. It says the claimant is a serving police officer!!. yes with explanation marks. The police officer says now. he did not need a sick note as he continued to work. he does not know what was said in the medical report he obtained and provided evidence for.
so the medical report states he went to the dr 6 days after the incident. and was signed of from work with a sick note for a full three weeks. with specific dates. but he never was . A typo or was it materially dishonest to imply he had been given one.

Steveeasy

[steveeasy]

The medical report refers to gp records and says he was given a sick note from 13/8 to 9/9 to not work. There is no record of a sick note. Now the claimant says he does not know s as nothing about it. He would have read his medical report though. Service police officer!! What does than. Believe what your told.

steveeasy

[des8]

I have known too many police officers to take what they say as gospel!

To have such confusion as to whether or not a sick (or fit to work) note was issued or needed doesn't do his credibility much good

[steveeasy]

Confussion. the medical report stated the gp records stated he was given a sick note for the time period above. 3 full weeks. that medical report was addressed to a court. when I read it, that one fact made him claim more creditable. Now after digging it transpires it never existed. Embellishment of the facts. He could having read it if not provided the information asked for it to be corrected. I am advised to ask the expert p35 questions to determine how the statement found its way in to the medical report prepared by an expert.

Think my offer will be retracted now. my offer was based on the evidence we had seen. not what I know now. I am also waiving privalage on the p36 offer and disclosing it to the court at early stage of any future proceedings.

Steveeasy

[jititu71]

Well i suppose you could write to the court and enclose a witness statement shewing how you have co operated with the said firm.

[jititu71]

I have known too many police officers to take what they say as gospel!
hellodear.in

teatv apk download

[Manxman]

steveeasy - sorry if I've missed it, but did your solicitor never get to the bottom of the question as to whether you (or the venue) were or were not covered by your public liability insurance?

As I recall there was a view that you should have been covered either by your old policy or your new policy (either on the basis that you had a policy when the alleged accident happened or that you had a policy when the claim was received).

I ask because if I were you I'd want to make sure it was my insurers dealing with all this legal hassle if at all possible, and not myself.

Or did it turn out that you weren't covered by insurance at all?