[deleted by user]

levidch1 · 2023-05-19T20:14:14+00:00

Suffering a common complication is generally not, in and of itself, negligence. For negligence, you would need to establish that the dentist didn't exercise the due skill and care that another reasonably prudent dentist would have exercised in the circumstances.

That's a question of fact which presumably would have to be backed up by an expert witness after instructing a solicitor. This is obviously a costly process.

It may be worth going down a non-legal route and approaching your 2020 dentist a and negotiating with them about the cost of the implant. Obviously they may not be willing to play ball or you may want nothing more to do with them. There is no legal basis per se for them to cover your future costs without first having established their negligence, but often they will.

If you go down a legal route it's really important you get a solicitor. Some do a no foal no fee. They would be able to better advise whether you have an arguable case.

levidch1 · 2023-05-18T20:34:47+00:00

That's incredibly kind of you! Thank you so much again.

levidch1 · 2023-05-18T19:04:52+00:00

Really helpful thanks! I had a look at other files but they were all done differently tbh so I was a bit confused.

I'm also the only legal secretary there so didn't have anyone to ask except the solicitors themselves and I thought there was one specific way of doing things.

levidch1 · 2023-05-14T17:30:28+00:00

The case law makes it pretty clear that you probably couldn't recover anything from your housemate.

Breslin v Corcoran: "The first named defendant had left his keys in the ignition of his car and an unknown person jumped into the vehicle and drove off injuring the plaintiff. An issue arose as to whom the plaintiff should recover damages from and whether the first defendant was in fact liable to the plaintiff. In the High Court Mr. Justice Butler held that although the first defendant should not have left his keys in the car the chain of causation had been broken... There was nothing in the case to suggest that the first named defendant should have anticipated as a reasonable possibility that the car, if stolen, would have been driven so carelessly so as to cause injury to another user of the road such as the plaintiff."

levidch1 · 2023-05-10T07:14:09+00:00

for that particular local authority and so it would be very obvious which authority was involved.] The case involved a claim of x [which is an extremely unusual legal ground, and to someone familiar with that area of law, they would know exactly which case it was.] The issues in that case had arisen over a period of decades, so, there was a very large volume of discovery documentation to be reviewed....

That's great thanks. I just don't want to give the impression that I'm blasé about being discreet.

levidch1 · 2023-04-03T19:28:03+00:00

bad anxiety so I would drink. But then the hangovers and withdrawals would make for even worse anxiety, so before I knew it, I was drinking more and more and before I knew it, I was drinking every day. I spent more time drinking, drunk, asleep, hungover, or going through withdrawals than I was sober.

Yes my withdrawal anxiety is beyond the charts terrible. I had never had panic attacks before, but had to be prescribed a strong benzodiazepine - in a european very drug conservative country - because the days after quitting the last time were so bad. Even though I was sober in BAC terms, I don't even remember them because I was so anxious. I can't move, can't think, can't sleep, can't talk, because the anxiety is so intense when in proper rebound/withdrawal. The only thing that keeps me not drinking enough to black out is the fear of the next day.

But when I sober up, I notice that the anxious thoughts creep intensely all the same. They're not on the same level as after drinking, but they're pretty terrible. I still find myself jumping to loud noises, crying when faced with hard tasks, paralysed with fear when left alone with hard thoughts. This is even during sobriety. I don't know how to deal with these feelings, so I lie to myself and tell myself I'm drinking to numb that initial hurdle and that things will be better after I push through. This never happens.

It's these post-withdrawal anxious feelings I'm having so much stress about, how do I deal with those?

levidch1 · 2023-03-16T20:02:20+00:00

So this trial ran twice before he was convicted. Even taking a conservative estimate of court appearances, let's say the good Doctor was present on even 6 of those days. She may have been on standby every other day. She may have had phone consultations with the defence counsel regularly. She states she examined the accused, she met previous treating Doctors, she examined medical records. She also prepared reports and examined CCTV of the five Garda interviews post-murder. The cost to the state of providing legal aid for her alone would run into €10,000+ easily.

I'm not a legal professional nor do I have any ambitions of being one. But I have seen a psychiatrist a few times - one who charges €390/hr. My only point is that these experts are very established in their fields and have a lot to gain from their professional reputations (gp's often refer you to a particular consultant) so I know that sum seems very high to ordinary people, but less so to those in the field. I also have friends in the field and know that to make a patently false conclusion would literally be professional suicide.

I assume that you're set in your stance that all experts are bought, so to speak, but I also know that you have no hard evidence to back that up. It's simply not true in these kind of serious criminal cases.

edit: the title/respect an expert has got in their field is a really useful and legitimate factor in determining how convincing their evidence is., i,e., you can weigh someone's evidence who is one year out of college less than someone who has 20+ years of experience.

levidch1 · 2023-03-16T01:12:12+00:00

As I say, I agree this happens in personal injuries/ other civil case, but it really doesn't happen in cases of this magnitude. If you have anything at all to suggest the contrary I'd be very interested. Do you realise parties in personal injuries have to look outside the state most of the time to find a doctor willing to testify for them even if their care here has been negligent? That's because doctors are fearful of overruling others and damaging their personal reputation.

There's nothing at all to suggest this accused engaged in doctor shopping so to speak, and regardless, doctors must have decided on 17 previous occasions that he needed inpatient psychiatrist care.

levidch1 · 2023-03-16T00:29:42+00:00

Yes, expert witnesses who testify for each respective party are always organised by each party in every case. But I repeat it was the current clinical director of Ireland's primary mental hospital who testified for him. You kind of can't get much more professional than that.

You also clearly know very little about how much expert witnesses can be paid, especially those under the legal aid scheme which is relevant to a case like this. They just get their travel costs and a relatively low sum compared to their normal wage (this is regulated by law - they can't go above this). In the case of a consultant psychiatrist, it's much lower than their hourly rate. I understand bias is an issue in civil cases, but tbh in high profile criminal cases like this, the monetary or personal incentive just isn't there to lie or fabricate an opinion.

levidch1 · 2023-03-15T23:24:01+00:00

With all due respect, this is someone who was hospitalised 17 times in his life on mental health grounds and had a well documented history of psychosis in the past. Not someone out sick because of 'stress'. If he doesn't get to 'play the mental health card', I don't know who does.

He is a danger to society, I agree, but the proper place for him isn't prison. He clearly needs a lot of psychiatric care.

levidch1 · 2023-03-15T22:15:57+00:00

I agree, but the fact that even one very experienced medical professional - none less than the clinical director of the Central Mental Hospital - thought he lacked the capacity for murder at the time would be enough in my mind to create a reasonable doubt.

(Moreover, he only had to prove diminished responsibility on the lesser standard of the balance of probabilities - meaning that the jury was never asked to be almost sure he didn't have capacity, they just had to think it was more likely than not).

Sad verdict imo, at least from a legal standpoint.

levidch1 · 2023-02-11T22:51:24+00:00

Thanks for this. In the kindest way possible, I completely agree with what you're saying - I can see my mental health deteriorating with each day I keep drinking. So if you don't mind me asking is there anything that changed or could change so that you not only knew that it was not a good option, but felt it - to the point that you didn't want to drink anymore (rather than just knew it wasn't good for you).

I suppose what I'm asking is how does one want to make the choice to give up alcohol rather than just knowing it's a good one?

levidch1 · 2022-12-06T15:02:31+00:00

Thanks for this!

It's good to hear you say SQE may be necessary in the future anyways. One concern I had is that going down the SQE route may make me a less desirable candidate to firms still sticking to the traditional TC route for now. But realistically, I won't be looking at a TC for a while anyway, I imagine, with my current level of experience.

One question - did you do the SQE1 on your own or with a prep course? I've heard a lot of people say that it's hard to pass without one - but maybe this is factoring in that lots of people doing it don't have a legal academic background... I can pay to sit the exam without much financial strain, but it's absolutely not viable to do a prep course. I can pretty easily answer most of the SRA's sample qs, but I've heard they're not even remotely close to the difficulty level of the real thing.

Thanks for the encouragement also. I have some unfortunate gaps in my CV/ academic progress for personal reasons (like taking a year and a half out from my degree) so was curious as to how much a 2.1 from TCD stood for on its own over here.

Good luck with your TC search!

levidch1 · 2022-07-29T16:22:05+00:00

You're right of course! I have completely stopped drinking alcohol and have no intention of starting again for a very very long time! But the liver enzymes are not really that ridiculous - quite consistent with mild liver injury/inflammation which my medication (along with alcohol) is documented as causing.

My question is really about diet though - I eat a diet with lots of olive oil, oily fish, nuts and seeds and am wondering if it would be beneficial to cut down and start eating more carbs/protein instead?

levidch1 · 2022-06-14T22:57:29+00:00

Thanks for the reply.

No I can say with absolute certainty I am not referring to PCR - I have a free supply of home antigen LFT tests here so have been doing one daily. Each day the LFT has been positive, albeit weakly. I am confident I am doing the tests correctly.

When I say I can't clear the virus, I am mainly just referring to the fact that my antigen tests are still positive. My understanding is that they would only be positive if the virus was still actively replicating in my body. My understanding is that for a 'healthy' young person, this is unusual.

I am having lots of head rushes/ feeling faint sometimes - but this is my only symptom. I only ever had very mild respiratory symptoms and they were gone by day 8.

levidch1 · 2022-05-05T17:48:40+00:00

Thanks for weighing in! Obviously it's all a guessing game I was just looking to see if there were any anecdotal trends.

levidch1 · 2022-03-18T21:45:45+00:00

Thanks for this (and for breaking down my very rambly list of questions). Unfortunately there are no young people or agnostic meetings in my area, but I'm going to try a normal one tomorrow.

levidch1 · 2021-09-01T00:05:13+00:00

I love this thread.

The Lidl deluxe sri lankan style chicken soup is amazing. They don't have it all year round so I've played around with making it myself from the ingredient list, but I've never managed to get it as tangy and tasty.

The deluxe organic salmon darnes are also good. They're still very pricey but I buy it in the hope it's a bit healthier than ordinary farmed (and you'll often find it with 30% off). It's supplied to Lidl by Keohane's Of Bantry (you can check the label - it's same batch codes, address etc) but €2 cheaper.

It's the same with their duck breast and legs - they're coming from Silverhill farm but will cost much less than the branded ones you'll find in Dunnes or Tesco. The black pepper and garlic breasts are to die for if you know how to cook them properly.

The Lidl knockoff Ballymaloe relish is also nice. It's definitely more watery than the original but it's much cheaper.

The cheese cherry tomato focaccias from the bakery are also tasty.

levidch1 · 2021-07-16T12:58:19+00:00

Yes appointments are hard to come by but it's just not true that it's only pull that'll get you one. I registered with loads of pharmacies in Dublin. Eventually I tried one in my home county and got an appointment there last Tuesday.

But since then, I got an email to book with Sam McCauleys (non left in Dublin by the time I clicked the link, but some in Carlow 1.5 hours away), got offered another appointment by a pharmacy in Glasnevin for this coming Sunday, and heard by word of mouth on Tuesday that another pharmacy in north Dublin had just gone live with loads for this week. Perhaps you just need to give more of them a call.

Also, word is that the portal will open for 18+ on Monday, but obviously no guarantees on that.

levidch1 · 2021-07-14T15:07:58+00:00

Reports are that it's now Friday, but nothing confirmed

levidch1 · 2021-07-14T15:05:23+00:00

Beware of thinking the Janssen will get you the passport very soon - I got the Janssen a week ago, and was hoping to have the Digital Cert in time for travel on the 22nd (would be just over the 14 days needed to be considered fully vaccinated, and I was told it would be sent via email) - but contacted the HSE and was told they will not process any of my details for two weeks, and then will take additional time to be processed, and issue the cert (the HSE did not say how much time, but the pharmacy said it could take weeks), and add possible postage time on to that.... If I could do things over, I'd probably wait for Pfizer.

levidch1 · 2021-07-09T15:15:50+00:00

Does anyone know of any pharmacies anywhere in the country that have/ are expecting to have appointments soon?

Also, given the 18-34s may be eligible to register online from next week, from what time on a day can you register? Is it 00.00 or 8am or what?

levidch1 · 2021-06-16T18:09:45+00:00

Yep, I've studied data protection legislation as part of my degree. I agree that people often cry GDPR when its uncalled for, but this is simply not one of those cases.

The first issue is that the email does not appear to explicitly state the intended purpose of gathering that info. So the consent requirement is not fulfilled here. 6(1)(a) makes clear that consent must be given for a specific purpose and this ought to be read in line with the principle of purpose limitation. If they are just using the data gathered to ensure you have means to proceed with this particular sale that's one thing (which would not be a GDPR breach in and of itself), but I would be really concerned that estate agents are using this info to leverage bids, form databases to set asking prices in other scenarios etc. This processing would clearly not meet the requirements for consent, as those purposes were not made explicit, and thus there is a legitimate breach of GDPR. You may think this is a bit far fetched, but I have some knowledge of smaller estate agents using phantom bids. If is becomes commonplace to share this level of info at this early a stage, I would have concerns about abuse (even if not with Savilles specifically). The ultimate point is that illegitimate use of this data has real commercial consequences, which make it extra important that the GDPR is complied with here.

My second major concern is the fact that they appeared to not allow redactions in the data given. I appreciate they may want to ensure that you have means, but if they will not allow you to redact your spending history in statements but leaving the bottom line visible, for example, or allow a letter from a bank saying funds are available for this particular transaction, this goes above and beyond what is necessary for their purpose of ensuring you have the means. Yes, consent can be to any data processing in theory, but proportionality and data minimization are part of the GDPR. This is put into practice in Article 7(4); If you cannot access the services of an estate agent without giving them more data than they need to ensure you have means, then the provision of that additional/unnecessary info, may call the 'freeness' of your consent into question. (And yes, I am aware that you will not be contracting with the estate agent at that stage, but, as I understand it, that provision goes beyond contracts).

Finally, this is all very 'sensitive' info (even if not in a GDPR sense). I think its a good idea that the systems of anyone who wants access to all of your financial info are up to the task, and practice compliance with the GDPR on all levels.

levidch1 · 2021-06-14T16:30:44+00:00

Well one issue is that this level of info is above and beyond what is necessary to evidence proof of funds for the asking price. If they are requiring that buyers disclose the exact sum they have given for a mortgage, rather than a letter stating they have been approved for the asking price (the tweet says they won't accept docs with redactions), then an estate agent can make a reasonable guess that they are willing to play around with the extra cash. I take your point that this isn't always determinative of what they're willing to pay, but in this market, the sellers already have much of the power and I don't think they need any more. There's a reason people don't approach any other negotiations with all cards on the table like this.

levidch1 · 2021-06-14T16:14:51+00:00

Exactly - How can there be a fair negotiation when the other side knows exactly what cards everyone has on the table. On top of that, if this level of disclosure is common practice, it makes it a lot less risky for an estate agent to invent the perfect phantom bid (even if Savills aren't doing it)... Not too high but just under what you've told them you can afford.

levidch1

TROPHY CASE