The difference between one actual word and its legal meaning
Posted by: Deane F on 13 March 2007
I was talking to my lawyer yesterday about what the definition of the word "permanent" was in respect of its use in a certain statute.
An impairment is "permanent" if it has persisted for two years or more.
...and it doesn't mean the permanent condition cannot change...over time, that is (in case you were confused).
Posted on: 13 March 2007 by u5227470736789439
It is s clever thing this. It means you have to hire a legal eagle of your own if you ever have to understand a leagal documant. Yes, this is a clever thing, for legal eagles!
ATB from Fredrik
Posted on: 13 March 2007 by Deane F
Fredrik
The law cannot be a simple thing. There is no simple way impose the same set of rules on different situations without allowing some argument as to whether the rule should be applied to this situation - but not that one.
I did like this "legal" definition of permanent though. Rather like arguing until a lump of coal is white.
Deane
Posted on: 14 March 2007 by Bob McC
Legal definitions are probably even geographically variable.
Posted on: 14 March 2007 by DIL
Its not easy foretelling the future, which is what assigning the term 'permanent' to an impairment is effectively doing. There will be some impairments that are permanent in the 'true' sense of the word, like loosing a finger/limb, but others where it would not be unreasonable to think that the sufferer could recover. The two year limit (Not that I knew it existed) is probably arbitrary, but provides for workable solutions in a legal/medical context.
No idea how this would affect, say, you right to keeping a monetary settlement for a permanent impairment that went away... Any suggestions?
I used to think that there were basically two types of job where the demand would never dry up; hairdressing and pornography. Looks like I'm going to have to add lawyer to that list.
/dl
