Most compensated claims for whiplash are “frankly spurious” , the professional body for general practice training has said.
In a submission to the Personal Injuries Commission, the Irish College of General Practitioners (ICGP) also warned that the extent to which whiplash had been monetised by means of legal claims had driven "inappropriate sick role behaviour".
The ICGP also said that given the dynamics of the doctor-patient relationship, treating physicians can be “hopelessly compromised” when it comes to objective reporting of an injury by a plaintiff.
The comments were contained in a series of answers to questions submitted to the Personal Injuries Commission which was established to address the rising cost of motor insurance. In drawing up its first report, which recommended adopting a standardised and internationally recognised approach to diagnosis, treatment and reporting on soft tissue injuries, the commission had contact with groups in the health sector.
The comments made by the ICGP to the commission were reported in the Sunday Business Post this weekend.
The full text of the comments were later released by the ICGP.
As part of the contact with the commission, the ICGP and other groups were asked about additional tests that could be considered.
The ICGP in its response said there were many tests - radiological and/or objective tests of functional capacity - “but given the frankly spurious nature of most compensated whiplash, unless there are clear objective examination of findings, these should not be embarked upon for reasons of cost and for avoiding unnecessary complexity”.
In answer to another question, the ICGP maintained there should be a reconsideration of the approach in Ireland "where whiplash has been monetised to the extent it has been, resulting in a legally-generated level of claims -driven inappropriate sick role behaviour".
“The issue is not to improve clinician grading of whiplash so much as to bring the level of awards down to levels seen in comparable jurisdictions in similar societies such as our own.”
Asked whether it agreed or disagreed that a medical expert with an on-going relationship with a claimant was independent and free from conflict when providing an expert opinion, the ICGP said this was a value judgement based on clinical experience.
“The current process used in the injuries process works well where it is fully and appropriately utilised by the third party medical examiner. The current process, whereby a report is sought from the plaintiff’s own GP, which in turn is available to the third party examiner, works well so long as the third party examiner remembers to refer to it, and in an appropriate manner. “
“Due to the dynamics of the doctor-patient relationship, the treating physician is hopelessly compromised in this context in terms of objective reporting, especially where there is a history of complex illness behaviour, which in itself is especially likely to be the case in that minority of cases with high levels of reported symptoms and a pre-existing history of high levels of health service usage on the part of the plaintiff.”
