February 16, 2011
By Staff Reporter
Before the landmark judgment, the state was facing a major compensation bill for worried-well cases involving exposure to asbestos and other substances.
In such cases, those seeking compensation are not physically ill but have a neurotic fear that they could become sick with a life-threatening condition.
The minister described the Supreme Court ruling as “very significant” and said that it represented a major step in reversing the compensation culture which has become endemic in recent years.
McCreevy said all arms of the state, from central to local government and beyond, would vigorously defend the dramatically increasing number of compensation actions being taken in the courts.
The minister said he is determined to eliminate the notion that the state is in some way a “soft touch.”
Elements of the legal profession were encouraging and, in some cases, actively soliciting people to take spurious actions against various organs of the state.
“Actions of this nature are being taken by taxpayers at the ultimate expense of fellow taxpayers,” McGreevy said.
The judges’ decision sent out a strong signal to those “who may think that the initiation of a compensation claim against the state is akin to approaching an ATM,” he added.
The five judges decided against allowing people to get damages for psychiatric injury resulting from “an irrational fear of contracting a disease because of their negligent exposure to health risks by employers, where their risk is characterized by their medical advisors as very remote.”
The 55-year-old state worker was exposed to asbestos in the basement of Leinster House in the late 1980s and is suffering from an anxiety neurosis about the risk of getting an asbestos-related cancer.