Does anyone have any experience of these people? I have just been
contacted by them in relation to issues surrounding a Doctor (who acted
as an Expert Witness).

I have read up on their remit ect but I still don't get a good feel of
who they are. I know I have a very good case against the Doctor in
question and I wondered are the MPS fair? Will they defend someone who
they know to be in the wrong? Would they knowingly lie for a Doctor?
What are their obligation to the patient?

Any feedback here would be great.




-- 
alexb123

alexb123 wrote:
> Does anyone have any experience of these people? I have just been
> contacted by them in relation to issues surrounding a Doctor (who acted
> as an Expert Witness).
> 
> I have read up on their remit ect but I still don't get a good feel of
> who they are. I know I have a very good case against the Doctor in
> question and I wondered are the MPS fair? Will they defend someone who
> they know to be in the wrong? Would they knowingly lie for a Doctor?
> What are their obligation to the patient?
> 

They are effectively a professional indemnity insurance company for
doctors (and possibly others in the medical professions - I don't know.)
In that respect they are much like any other insurer that you might encounter
acting for a driver or a householder: their obligation is to their client
and to their company. They won't knowingly lie. They will *defend* someone
who is in the wrong, but only to the extent that they are entitled to
a defence.

If you are involved in legal action against this doctor, then it may be better
for you if any dialogue takes place via your own representative - that is,
ask them to speak via your solicitor rather than directly to you, particularly
if you are worried about someone trying to be unfair to you.

But remember also that, as with all insurers, they will also have an eye
to minimising costs, but not at the expense of their client's career.
In other words, if your dispute is about getting compensation, focus on that.
If you simply want answers (as many people do in these cases), that can
be difficult once legal action has started.

"alexb123"  wrote in message 
news:alexb123.2c19fbb@legalbanter.co.uk...
>
> Does anyone have any experience of these people? I have just been
> contacted by them in relation to issues surrounding a Doctor (who acted
> as an Expert Witness).
>
> I have read up on their remit ect but I still don't get a good feel of
> who they are. I know I have a very good case against the Doctor in
> question and I wondered are the MPS fair? Will they defend someone who
> they know to be in the wrong? Would they knowingly lie for a Doctor?
> What are their obligation to the patient?
>
> Any feedback here would be great.
>
>
They are a medical defense society.  Doctor's pay them and then when someone 
tries to sue the doctor they get involved.  They will assess the case and if 
needed obtain expert evidence.  If they think they can defend the case they 
will write back saying so and do so in court.  If they can't they will 
negotiate a settlement of the claim.
They defend 70% of all claims sucessfully (for the doctor).

"mert1639"  wrote in message 
news:g5j1it$8g7$1@frank-exchange-of-views.oucs.ox.ac.uk...

> They are a medical defense society.  Doctor's pay them and then when 
> someone
> tries to sue the doctor they get involved.  They will assess the case and 
> if
> needed obtain expert evidence.  If they think they can defend the case 
> they
> will write back saying so and do so in court.  If they can't they will
> negotiate a settlement of the claim.
> They defend 70% of all claims sucessfully (for the doctor).

This is a slight over-simplification. Cases are never 100% black or white in 
my experience. There is always some uncertainty. And even if liability is 
admitted, there's usually an argument about quantum. What I see may be 
biased because I tend to see the cases that are being fought, but my strong 
impression is that insurers normally defend cases to some extent, as it puts 
them in a stronger position to settle.

Consequently, even if you have a cast-iron case, you can expect the insurers 
to defend it (unless it's a really tiny claim maybe). Consequently, the OP 
needs a solicitor.

"GB"  wrote in message 
news:487d2216$0$2924$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk...
>
> "mert1639"  wrote in message
> news:g5j1it$8g7$1@frank-exchange-of-views.oucs.ox.ac.uk...
>
>> They are a medical defense society.  Doctor's pay them and then when
>> someone
>> tries to sue the doctor they get involved.  They will assess the case and
>> if
>> needed obtain expert evidence.  If they think they can defend the case
>> they
>> will write back saying so and do so in court.  If they can't they will
>> negotiate a settlement of the claim.
>> They defend 70% of all claims sucessfully (for the doctor).
>
> This is a slight over-simplification. Cases are never 100% black or white 
> in
> my experience. There is always some uncertainty. And even if liability is
> admitted, there's usually an argument about quantum. What I see may be
> biased because I tend to see the cases that are being fought, but my 
> strong
> impression is that insurers normally defend cases to some extent, as it 
> puts
> them in a stronger position to settle.
>
> Consequently, even if you have a cast-iron case, you can expect the 
> insurers
> to defend it (unless it's a really tiny claim maybe). Consequently, the OP
> needs a solicitor.
>
Fair enough, I'm going on the magazine they send me every month or so.  It 
includes a section on some recent cases and how the MPS/MDU have helped the 
Dr.  Very often they include one, where on expert advise, they have settled 
in full. Of course, they will often negotiate with the plantiff.