Unmanaged post-viral disease liability, risk exposure and rising pandemic exposure (draft)
Compliance obligations for professionals, operational and expertise risks in practice management, social care, occupational health intermediation, insurance underwriting, claims management and reinsurance
- Context of unmanaged liabilities
- Enforceable obligations
- Obligation to not negate ME/CFS legal status
- Obligation to procure ME/CFS medical education
- Obligation to not mislead or evade diagnosis and to provide sufficient detail (FND, MUS, PPS, ‘dysregulation model’ and Long Covid examples)
- Obligation to not abuse power and authority
- Obligation to recognise ME/CFS patient housebound or carer status
- Tests of lawfulness
- Risks – compliance and operational
- Unlawful clinical judgement (examples)
- Expertise risk and reputational risk – medical and legal
- Illusion of legal authority vs medical law enforcement
- Knowledge-gap risk and audit trails (examples plus research-market inefficiencies)
- Freedom of Information Act risks – flawed clinical judgement, discrimination and education refusal
- Third party risk from preceding unlawful clinical judgement
- Liability, malpractice and indemnification
- Irrelevance of official edicts and officialised redistribution of liabilities to frontline balance sheets (vaccination and NICE guideline examples)
- Compromised indemnification, insurance cover nullification and liability for lost income
- Evaluating duties of care and unmanaged risk exposures
- Risk mitigation
- Version history
These compliance documents are live pre-released drafts that are specifically not structured for scientific audiences. Specific scientific referencing can be provided in consulting contexts, not limited to practice management, claims management, underwriting or litigation support for professionals or organisations.
Copyright and redistribution rights are governed by our terms of site usage. Communication of factual or typographical errata or other suggestions is welcome. This content was originally contained here (external link), has been split into separate compliance sections on our website and is in need of significant ongoing update.
A journalistic summary of these documents for lay audiences will soon be published.
The role of habitualised unlawful clinical judgement and discrimination that leads to elevated probability of evidentiable malpractice is outlined. Obligations and principles are detailed below and offer opportunities for risk mitigation in response. Currently underestimated risks from appropriate use of discrimination law or freedom of information law are highlighted.
“The empirical improbability that a clinician’s judgement can be assumed safe, appropriate or lawful in this field is demonstrated, alongside multiple examples of habitual breaches, risk generation and tests of legality“Doctors with M.E.
Post-viral disease is an undermined field of risk assessment, pricing, budgeting, compliance management, reputation management and liability generation. Elevated probability of unlawful clinical judgement and/or administrative decision-making in this field pervades clinical and therapeutic services and related contracting parties. Risks are routinely misjudged. These risks are exacerbated by normalised procurement of fallacious services or testimony, all failing to account for the following factors:
- Clinical judgement, administrative decision-making, guidelines, policy formulation or policy implementation that fails to meet the requirements of the law are not lawful by definition and carry risk
- Claims that do not meet the thresholds of scientific probity, rigour and/or process cannot be described as science and are thus legally unsustainable and carry risk (regardless even of partial or total contradiction by bodies of work that are sufficiently substantive)
- Claims that are legally unsustainable do not change their risk-profile when obfuscated by office-holders or purported eminence, which instead introduce additional risks
- Clinical judgement or administrative decision-making that depends on such claims of normalised failure cannot therefore sustain claims of lawfulness and carry risk
- Claims of the habitual nature of consequent failings do not form a legally sustainable defence and counter-productively demonstrate institutionalised compliance breaches, discrimination and other unlawful contexts
- Education or organisational policies regularly encourage zero-return risk, by directly cultivating unlawful behaviour, versus statutory provisions, duties of care, policy and regulation
Medico-legal issues, requirements and enforcement factors are discussed. Legal obligations on service providers versus current risk generation are then outlined, along with their impacts on liability, malpractice-risk and indemnification. Risk-mitigation measures are offered throughout and are followed by compliant education resources.
Pertinent to practice management, insurance claim management and reinsurance underwriting review, examples of frequent and unlawful clinical judgement are utilised (influenza and covid vaccination scheme eligibility and FND diagnosis). These are used to illustrate commonly unaddressed frontline risk generation in the area of post-viral disease and generalisable implications that are portable across contexts, ranging from occupational medicine to social care.
Context of unmanaged liabilities
Audience, scope and disclaimer
Our Compliance pages provide health and social care providers and practitioners, insurance underwriters and reinsurers, claims management firms, intermediary agencies, litigators and related organisations with information regarding unmanaged and growing risks from specific, widely evidenced and normalised medical error and malpractice. Wording is necessarily direct, being focused on organisational risk and liability exposure (notions of intra-medical professional decorum accelerate malpractice-risk, due the suspension of legal and compliance norms that is unlawfully institutionalised).
The reader thus assumes full responsibility for its use or for failure to account for matters raised and their implications for individual and group litigation/class action contexts. Dangers include reputational risk and disproportionately unnecessary risks to balance sheets, both in terms of 1) liabilities accumulated, 2) liabilities accumulated and unaccounted for and 3) liabilities now growing at an accelerated rate due to the pandemic (with the British Medical Association and US National Institutes of Health NAIAD specifically identifying ME/CFS as a likely post-covid neurological syndrome).
“Involuntarily assumption of risk by third party organisations, client industries and employers is also highlighted – liabilities are obfuscated and shifted to them by individuals, government, clinical commissioning groups, regulatory or self regulatory bodies or other organs”Doctors with M.E.
Examples are given that demonstrate the roles of legal and policy requirements versus normalised unlawful clinical judgement. Tests for clinical judgement lawfulness are also outlined. Principles contained therein are generalisable by third parties to different post-viral and related scenarios that are driven by equivalent factors, for example in those Long Covid cases that meet pre-existing diagnostic criteria.
The empirical improbability that a clinician’s judgement can be assumed safe, appropriate or lawful versus ME/CFS is also shown. This leads to the generalisable obligation to procure compliant education and other legal obligations, derived from multiple statutory risks and regulatory imperatives reflected by the official and self-regulatory bodies (such as the UK General Medical Council (GMC), the Care Quality Commission (CQC) and their equivalents in other jurisdictions).
Involuntarily assumption of risk by third party organisations, client industries and employers is also highlighted – liabilities are obfuscated and shifted to them by individuals, government, clinical commissioning groups, regulatory or self regulatory bodies or other organs (link). Obfuscated redistribution of liabilities to frontline and third party balance sheets is closely related to underestimated limits on the role of governmental, agencies and other bodies, which are all subject to the law (link) and whose avoidance of liabilities can be most easily achieved by ensuring others’ responsibility.
This information provision is without warranty and no guidance should be interpreted herein. This document provides neither legal, medical nor any other form of advice. Formal medico-legal advice should be taken regarding post-viral disease where appropriate.
See the above legal obligations for context and the governing implications from 1) the elevented likelihood of unlawful clinical judgement in this field versus 2) medico-legal requirements, ongoing failure and enforcement-risks.
Resources that contribute to compliance with the above obligations can be found in our education resources section (which is currently in construction).
Record of major revisions across our Compliance pages.