Derek McDowell (Labour)

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 12, subsection (3)(c), line 3, after "injuries" to insert "and whom the claimant proposes to call as a witness in the event of bringing proceedings in respect of the claim".

This amendment deals with medical reports. Again, I am seeking to replicate the situation that applies in court cases. Under the legislation, the board can require all medical reports or all correspondence between a claimant and his or her doctor or consultant. The amendment suggests that the claimant should only be required to produce those reports or that correspondence on which the claimant would rely if they were in court.

It is not unusual to get an unsatisfactory report from a doctor. Medical practitioners do not see producing reports for lawyers or for claims as a priority. Understandably, they see their priority as patient care. Detailed reports setting out the nature or circumstances of an injury, the prognosis and so forth are sometimes not easy to get. It is not unusual for a claimant to decide not to use a certain report or to get a report from a doctor that is unsatisfactory and have to go back to the doctor to get a satisfactory one. In a sense, that is a reflection on the doctors but I understand their perspective in this regard in so far as they see these reports as something one dictates before breakfast rather than something that is accorded priority in the course of one's day when looking after patients.

Only reports on which the claimant intends to rely in court should have to be disclosed to the board. Otherwise, one could end up with many inadequate reports going to the board.