Current Page: 4 of 4
Re: Michael Fatialofa
Posted by: Dolph42 (IP Logged)
Date: 07 July, 2020 13:34

Quote:
boomer!
As per the HMRC, health cover is a benefit in kind and has a tax liability. So, if corporate Wuzz as Michael's employer were to pick up Michael's tab would this too be a benefit in kind, and therefore deemed as income?
I suspect the Sarries amongst us know where I am going with this.....

If you're talking about the salary cap it excludes "any insurance premium paid or payable directly or indirectly by or on behalf of a Club in respect of the personal private medical insurance of a Player, including Rugby Care" and I suspect that this cost would fall under this. It's the cost associated with a work related 'accident' so can't see it being described as income for cap purposes.

Re: Michael Fatialofa
Posted by: Innings (IP Logged)
Date: 07 July, 2020 18:22

Quote:
I think people are being a bit harsh on Worcester. It sounds like they were caught off guard by the medical bill as much as he was. And their statement sounds like they’ll be fully supporting him so he won’t be out of pocket

So, just to take one example, is it possible to believe that the people who arrange these things at Sixways had never heard of Matt Hampson?



Innings

Points win matches: tries win hearts and minds.

Re: Michael Fatialofa
Posted by: boomer! (IP Logged)
Date: 08 July, 2020 00:39

Quote:
Dolph42
Quote:
boomer!
As per the HMRC, health cover is a benefit in kind and has a tax liability. So, if corporate Wuzz as Michael's employer were to pick up Michael's tab would this too be a benefit in kind, and therefore deemed as income?
I suspect the Sarries amongst us know where I am going with this.....

If you're talking about the salary cap it excludes "any insurance premium paid or payable directly or indirectly by or on behalf of a Club in respect of the personal private medical insurance of a Player, including Rugby Care" and I suspect that this cost would fall under this. It's the cost associated with a work related 'accident' so can't see it being described as income for cap purposes.

Fair point, if it is insurance premium.

But my understanding (which very possibly is wrong) from the article is that the insurance cover that Wuzz took out was inadequate and it did not cover all of the costs related to Michael's recovery from this awful injury, and that is why Michael is now faced with this bill. A bill that will either be paid by Michael, paid for by a JustGiving/CrowdFunding posting, or by the club. If it is by the club then it cannot be an insurance premium paid directly or indirectly by the club because the insurance claim has already been made.
(That would be the equivalent of writing of your Porsche which you insured 3rd party only to go back to the insurer and ask to pay for fully comp because the repair bill is excessive).

It could be an ex-gratia payment which might fly under the HMRC radar but I can't see an ex-gratia payment (even for unexpected medical expenses) meeting the strict rules that govern the SC.

It would be a farce if Michael got stuck with this bill and I am sure he won't but given the way the SCM interpreted the rules in September and November 2019, I'd like to see a statement from him on how Wuzz could pay this bill and how it not be declared as income.



It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog.

Re: Michael Fatialofa
Posted by: colinmiddx (IP Logged)
Date: 08 July, 2020 10:25

I think there is another option. It was reported that he was going to be moved to the NHS Stoke Mandeville Hospital.
Also that there wasn't room at Stoke Mandeville Hospital (or the Dr. said he need to stay where he was) and the NHS agreed and they pay under there mandate to use private facility's as required.

Re: Michael Fatialofa
Posted by: Dolph42 (IP Logged)
Date: 08 July, 2020 11:36

Boomer some fair points, but I think in this case we're looking at an error in how the funding is requested and it won't ultimately fall on Worcester or Fatialofa. I would suspect that if it did fall on Worcester to pay it wouldn't be classed as income but a normal club expense in the provision of it's duty of care to employees, just like physios or private operations are funded by clubs. To be fair to Worcester despite him now being out of contract they're continuing to provide him care and rehab etc.

Re: Michael Fatialofa
Posted by: Innings (IP Logged)
Date: 09 July, 2020 09:27

It's astonishing that that this is a topic even worthy of debate. The man at the centre of this is an employee in a dangerous trade, and there should be three elements of response to the incident that reflect the employer's duty of care:

1/. Certainty that the insurance cover is adequate for the occasional worst-case outcomes, whether entirely funded by the employer or in first part by the employer and in second by a top-up insurance on a group basis and arranged by PRL.

2/. Absolute assurance given to the employee, immediately, that his needs will be met.

3/. Clear and public assurance given to the club's other employees and stakeholders that 1/. & 2/. are happening.

If it were the case that all three were in place and working, a very different public narrative would be playing out.



Innings

Points win matches: tries win hearts and minds.

Re: Michael Fatialofa
Posted by: boomer! (IP Logged)
Date: 09 July, 2020 15:34

Quote:
Innings
It's astonishing that that this is a topic even worthy of debate. The man at the centre of this is an employee in a dangerous trade, and there should be three elements of response to the incident that reflect the employer's duty of care:
1/. Certainty that the insurance cover is adequate for the occasional worst-case outcomes, whether entirely funded by the employer or in first part by the employer and in second by a top-up insurance on a group basis and arranged by PRL.

2/. Absolute assurance given to the employee, immediately, that his needs will be met.

3/. Clear and public assurance given to the club's other employees and stakeholders that 1/. & 2/. are happening.

If it were the case that all three were in place and working, a very different public narrative would be playing out.

Agreed on all three points.

It is worthy of debate because, for whatever reason, seemingly Michael's case has failed to meet those points.



It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog.

Re: Michael Fatialofa
Posted by: Sarriebone (IP Logged)
Date: 17 July, 2020 19:27

Tatiana Fatialofa @tatianafats ·

6 months ago, docs were mostly concerned that his arms & hands would ever move/feel/function again, (more so than his lower body being restored) Seeing him lift today made me cry because I know this is costing him far more than just his physical strength @michaelfats

[twitter.com]

Current Page: 4 of 4
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
We record all IP addresses on the Sportnetwork message boards which may be required by the authorities in case of defamatory or abusive comment. We seek to monitor the Message Boards at regular intervals. We do not associate Sportnetwork with any of the comments and do not take responsibility for any statements or opinions expressed on the Message Boards. If you have any cause for concern over any material posted here please let us know as soon as possible by e-mailing abuse@sportnetwork.net