IOM DHSC & MANX CARE

[Kopek]

Even if she had moved back to the UK after being fired, the award would still be Manx income subject to Manx tax because it was a Manx job?

Should an award like this be subject to tax???

[Roger Mexico]

3 hours ago, Gladys said:

The explanation is it is after tax surely? 

It wasn't clear when the settlement amount was first announced that that was the reason (though it makes sense).

57 minutes ago, Kopek said:

Should an award like this be subject to tax???

Most of it is compensation for lost earnings, so the argument is that if she had kept on working as she wanted, she would have been paying tax on it.  Some parts of the settlement (exemplary damages?) may be tax free, but will be a fairly minor part of the total.

[Kopek]

To play devilled avocado on this, there is a defence argument that further employment would be impossible under the circumstances, 2.5 mill would indicate some 15 years of unemployment, ae the tribunal obliged to take other employment into account??? Maybe they did?

The defence have illustrated the psychological affect but does that mean she would not have been employable in a similar role to that which she held?

As I say, I'm just playing devils advocate here, I wish her well but there are so many side legal arguments of the legal argument that could be played here. Is she losing out on millions of lost income  or is she so psychologistically damaged that she could not work in her former field anyway??? She will pay Manx tax  on any future accounts held here.

Of course, if I were her Advocate i would argue as they have done but if she gains employment in the  future, does this negate her award???

[WTF]

6 hours ago, Kopek said:

To play devilled avocado on this, there is a defence argument that further employment would be impossible under the circumstances, 2.5 mill would indicate some 15 years of unemployment, ae the tribunal obliged to take other employment into account??? Maybe they did?

The defence have illustrated the psychological affect but does that mean she would not have been employable in a similar role to that which she held?

As I say, I'm just playing devils advocate here, I wish her well but there are so many side legal arguments of the legal argument that could be played here. Is she losing out on millions of lost income  or is she so psychologistically damaged that she could not work in her former field anyway??? She will pay Manx tax  on any future accounts held here.

Of course, if I were her Advocate i would argue as they have done but if she gains employment in the  future, does this negate her award???

so if she does take on another job should any earnings come back to IOM government as they have effectively paid her already ?

[Jarndyce]

1 hour ago, WTF said:

so if she does take on another job should any earnings come back to IOM government as they have effectively paid her already ?

Is this really where we’ve reached on this thread?   The last few comments sound like an internal Treasury discussion after they got the bad news about the award, ie, “how much can we claw back”?

Have we really forgotten so completely what led to this award: the appalling, bullying reaction of officers and politicians to legitimate attempts to communicate during a crisis; and the subsequent reaction to the whistleblowing?   The minister(s) who - at best - turned a blind eye and swallowed the CEO’s story whole and without question?   The dreadful approach taken by the IOMG legal team: the decisions regarding appeals; the unusual punitive awards made by the tribunal due to the egregious attitude shown by IOMG to Dr Ranson (an expert employee to whom, at the very least, they owed a duty of care rather than psychological game playing)?

Plus the many similar cases currently lurking under various IOMG stones, which will never see the light of day because the victims don’t have a powerful professional organisation willing to back them?

[Gladys]

8 hours ago, Kopek said:

To play devilled avocado on this, there is a defence argument that further employment would be impossible under the circumstances, 2.5 mill would indicate some 15 years of unemployment, ae the tribunal obliged to take other employment into account??? Maybe they did?

The defence have illustrated the psychological affect but does that mean she would not have been employable in a similar role to that which she held?

As I say, I'm just playing devils advocate here, I wish her well but there are so many side legal arguments of the legal argument that could be played here. Is she losing out on millions of lost income  or is she so psychologistically damaged that she could not work in her former field anyway??? She will pay Manx tax  on any future accounts held here.

Of course, if I were her Advocate i would argue as they have done but if she gains employment in the  future, does this negate her award???

1.  Read the award judgement.

2.  The defence side was DHSC who did not illustrate the psychological impact on Dr Ranson, that was her team.

3. It is the psychological damage caused to her that has made it difficult for her to return to her former field, hence the award for lost future income. 

4. The award is the award, doubt there is any scope for a clawback without an appeal. 

 

[WTF]

33 minutes ago, Jarndyce said:

Is this really where we’ve reached on this thread?   The last few comments sound like an internal Treasury discussion after they got the bad news about the award, ie, “how much can we claw back”?

Have we really forgotten so completely what led to this award: the appalling, bullying reaction of officers and politicians to legitimate attempts to communicate during a crisis; and the subsequent reaction to the whistleblowing?   The minister(s) who - at best - turned a blind eye and swallowed the CEO’s story whole and without question?   The dreadful approach taken by the IOMG legal team: the decisions regarding appeals; the unusual punitive awards made by the tribunal due to the egregious attitude shown by IOMG to Dr Ranson (an expert employee to whom, at the very least, they owed a duty of care rather than psychological game playing)?

Plus the many similar cases currently lurking under various IOMG stones, which will never see the light of day because the victims don’t have a powerful professional organisation willing to back them?

i don't disagree with her getting awarded financially for the crap IOMG and its bullies put her through but what led to the award wasn't what my question was about, , i was just asking as the award was based on her not being able to work again , if she did work again would/should the award need retrospectively altering?  if  someone was injured in a car crash and was paid out for ending up in a wheelchair and never being able to walk again  and then 5 years later they won the London marathon i'm sure the insurers would be looking for a bit of a refund . 

Edited June 28, 2023 by WTF

[Gladys]

12 minutes ago, WTF said:

i don't disagree with her getting awarded financially for the crap IOMG and its bullies put her through but what led to the award wasn't what my question was about, , i was just asking as the award was based on her not being able to work again , if she did work again would/should the award need retrospectively altering?  if  someone was injured in a car crash and was paid out for ending up in a wheelchair and never being able to walk again  and then 5 years later they won the London marathon i'm sure the insurers would be looking for a bit of a refund . 

Not sure that would happen, both sides would have expert opinion on the likely lasting effects of any injury at the time of the award.  If, by some fluke, the person recovered  then that is tough, I suppose. 

If there is no appeal within the time limits, you presume that both sides are content with the award based on the facts and opinions given by each side at the time.  If there was some fraud in presenting the severity of the injuries, or some other flaw in the process   then that may be a different matter.  Some legal eagles may be able to better confirm. 

A legal process has been gone through and the decision is final I suppose.  After all, if the award has been spent, it would be like getting blood out of the proverbial.

Edited June 28, 2023 by Gladys

[Jarndyce]

17 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

It's clear that she and her family moved permanently to the Island shortly after her appointment and have since bought a house and settled. 

Indeed: Dr Ranson showed considerably more commitment to the island than Magson, in that regard.

But then, “Arms-Length Minister” Ashford had NO problem with a remote, off-island CEO - so he’s as much to blame for that specific issue as Magson.

[Gladys]

1 hour ago, Jarndyce said:

Indeed: Dr Ranson showed considerably more commitment to the island than Magson, in that regard.

But then, “Arms-Length Minister” Ashford had NO problem with a remote, off-island CEO - so he’s as much to blame for that specific issue as Magson.

Really, Jarndyce, this is 2023 (or 2020) you really do need to get with the times.  Managers do not need to be physically near those with whom they work to be effective! 

[2112]

Amid great fanfare across the water and celebrations, with a National Service of Thanksgiving to be held for the NHS, it will be interesting to see what our politicos will do to celebrate the 75th Anniversary of the founding of the Manx NHS? CM Cannan is obsessing with other matters and health has sadly been allowed to wither away. 

[Moghrey Mie]

1 hour ago, 2112 said:

Amid great fanfare across the water and celebrations, with a National Service of Thanksgiving to be held for the NHS, it will be interesting to see what our politicos will do to celebrate the 75th Anniversary of the founding of the Manx NHS? CM Cannan is obsessing with other matters and health has sadly been allowed to wither away. 

Plenty of time yet. The Isle of Man Health Services Act came in on 10th August 1948.

[WTF]

8 minutes ago, Moghrey Mie said:

Plenty of time yet. The Isle of Man Health Services Act came in on 10th August 1948.

IOMG can't achieve anything in 5 years, what do you expect them to do in 5 weeks ?

[2112]

16 minutes ago, Moghrey Mie said:

Plenty of time yet. The Isle of Man Health Services Act came in on 10th August 1948.

It may have come into law on the 10th August 1948 but it came into being on the 5 July 1948 the same as the UK NHS.

It has taken IOMG an eternity to acknowledge the severity of the 1973 Summerland Fire, and it has ‘organised’ a Service at St George’s Church at the end of July, as a acknowledgment of the landmark anniversary, when in reality they are usually embarrassed into these events by public reaction. 
 

I would rather that IOMG instead of the usual dick waving and grandstanding, would seriously address the deep seated concerns of the issues facing the islands health service. Sadly CM Cannan can’t be bothered and Minister Hooperman is way out of his depth. 

[GD4ELI]

Why on Earth should there be a service of thanksgiving? Just get on with the job...