Seanad debates

Tuesday, 25 November 2003

Personal Injuries Assessment Board Bill 2003: Report and Final Stages.

 

Photo of Michael AhernMichael Ahern (Cork East, Fianna Fail)

The purpose of amendment No. 3 is to remove a section which provides that a respondent's agreement, or inferred agreement, to a claimant's submission for PIAB assessment shall not constitute an admission of liability nor shall it be used in any other manner to prejudice legal arguments in subsequent court proceedings. Therefore, I reject the amendment. Both parties can reject the assessment. For fair procedures to be followed, both parties must have an unfettered right to reject the award without being prejudiced in any subsequent litigation.

Amendment No. 4 is related to amendment No. 6 in that section 32(4) is a proposed new section, the insertion of which we are rejecting. The text proposed here is, therefore, not required.

On amendment No. 6, section 32 refers to provisions where a claimant is authorised to take legal proceedings if a PIAB assessment is rejected. The purpose of the amendment, that is, the addition of a new subsection 32(4), is that where a respondent rejects an assessment and proceedings commence, the respondent will not be able to deny liability. I reject the amendment. Where a respondent consents to assessment and he or she does not admit liability, the issue of liability is set aside. Nothing in the PIAB process will prejudice either party in the event of subsequent proceedings. The PIAB will not deal with legal issues.

I reject amendment No. 7. This is related to amendment No. 6, which I am opposing. The PIAB will not deal with liability issues. They will be set aside. Liability issues will not arise during the PIAB process. Senator O'Toole summed up the matter well. If respondents had to accept liability the system would not work. The PIAB will not disadvantage claimants. The interests of claimants will be fully represented on the board.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.