05-20-2015, 09:02 PM
Will be very interesting to see whether the insurers decide to appeal this decision. They run the risk of entrenching the decision into law as a binding precedent if they do and the appeal is lost. At present PTSD as a physical injury is the decision of a single judge based on specific facts and as such is quite easily distinguishable at law should the facts slightly differ.
For example, what if Ms Casey had not suffered the physical trauma which has led to her severe pain and subsequent PTSD but merely suffered PTSD as a result of the terror of the ditching and subsequent fear for her life while in the water? I suggest that the embuggerance of the Montreal Convention would stand the challenge.
Meanwhile, I trust the victory so far will give some comfort to Ms Casey as she surely deserves some good news.
For example, what if Ms Casey had not suffered the physical trauma which has led to her severe pain and subsequent PTSD but merely suffered PTSD as a result of the terror of the ditching and subsequent fear for her life while in the water? I suggest that the embuggerance of the Montreal Convention would stand the challenge.
Meanwhile, I trust the victory so far will give some comfort to Ms Casey as she surely deserves some good news.