Compromised indemnification, insurance cover nullification and liability for lost income

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.

It is of acute risk management importance to note that any officialised obfuscation or encouragement of unlawful outcomes is not accompanied by implicit indemnification for discrimination, of duties of care or other improper acts. This is in addition to reputational risk and accompanying freedom of information risk.

Moreoever, lack/incompleteness of central NHS indemnification in certain cases of unlawful decision-making can be mirrored by complications in medical cover, at best complicating or reducing it and negating it at worst. This is not limited to where death or injury occurs, and may include the consequences of unlawful harm and/or consequential financial loss, with documented audit trails of the types identified above. The empirical consensus is that at best only 5% of patients recover within five years typically, with aggregate implications for claims involving lost income. Given that 1) duration and quantification of purported has been an area of low quality research in itself and 2) that misdiagnoses and underdiagnoses of ME/ are endemic, even this percentage may be optimistic.