1 -1- CHRONIC PAIN: A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE Pain used to be a simple issue. It was caused by physical injury or disease and the sufferer had to rest and take opium In today s medico-legal world the issue of pain and chronic pain is no longer simple and whilst the possession of opiates and other drugs is occasionally justified by reference to their medicinal properties, such issues more often arise as part of a hastily put together defence to criminal charges rather than the treatment regime for which damages are claimed in the claimant s schedule of loss. 2. The complexities of diagnosis, causation and prognosis of chronic pain conditions have been addressed by the medical experts. As indicated, pain is a quintessentially subjective symptom and it would appear that there exists no practicable test to verify its presence. Under the current medical regime of disease realism, most chronic pain is fragilely classified as a syndrome rather than a disease In the medico-legal context, the courts have now recognised that chronic pain is a compensatable condition. Guidelines have been published to assist judges in 1 Merskey, Pain Disorder, Hysteria or Somatization. 2 Syndromes consist of groupings of symptoms and signs whose causes have yet to be determined.
2 -2- reaching the appropriate award for general damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity. A range of conditions is listed and variously described as chronic pain, fibromyalgia, complex regional pain syndrome With increasing legal and medico-legal awareness, the legal debate has shifted from asking whether the claimant has suffered a recognisable medical condition (is what the claimant complaining about a recognised medical condition?) to whether the claimant s condition, whatever the label to be attached to it, was caused by the defendant s tortious conduct (is the Defendant responsible in law for the claimant s condition). The remainder of this paper looks at the issues likely to arise as a result of any such investigation and the approach to be adopted by a defendant, his legal advisors and insurers faced with such a claim. THORP v SHARP 4 - A Case of unidentified Chronic Pain? 5. Sandra Thorp sustained accident injuries at her employer s place of work in October 2000 when she tripped whilst carrying a tray of hot food. She described hearing a crack and felt immediate pain in her right hip. She worked for a couple of weeks with what was said to be worsening pain. Eventually seeing her GP, X-rays showed no pathology, although the Claimant continued to complain of pain. Eventually, the Claimant commenced proceedings, seeking damages for continuing significant pain and disability affecting her right hip. Her ability to 3 It is to be noted that the JSB Guidelines list the above under the broad heading Psychiatric Injuries! 4  EWCA Civ 1433.
3 -3- work was affected and the damages claimed were significant. The nature of the Claimant s condition was categorised by her legal advisers as chronic pain. 6. By the date of trial much of the standard investigations had been carried out and the evidence deployed was unsurprising. Both parties relied on medical expert evidence from an orthopaedic expert and from consultant psychiatrists. The Defendant relied upon covert surveillance evidence that was said to show a significant difference between the level of disability as reported to the orthopaedic experts and that revealed in the DVD; the Defendant also argued that the Claimant had made similar complaints of hip joint pain some years before the accident in question. Orthopaedic evidence: There was agreement that the X-rays and other evidence failed to identify any obvious orthopaedic explanation for the Claimant s continuing complaints. An initial report from the claimant s orthopaedic expert has suggested some acceleration of pre-existing symptoms but this argument had been abandoned by the date of trial. Psychiatric evidence: The experts agreed that the Claimant had no pre-existing history of psychiatric illness and was not suffering from any psychiatric illness at the date of examination. Both psychiatrists expressed dissatisfaction with the term or label chronic pain (on the basis that it appeared to be more descriptive
4 -4- rather than diagnostic) but in any event felt that a diagnosis of chronic pain could not be made because they could not identify any psychiatric illness. Psychological evidence: A clinical psychologist was called by the Claimant. He rejected a diagnosis of a pain disorder in the following terms: My reading of the orthopaedic expert s opinion suggests there is no clear diagnosis of the cause of the claimant s pain nor is there any convincing evidence of pathology that might be responsible. This is, of course, not to say that the claimant s pain does not have its original in a medical condition or muscular, skeletal or neurological damage. However, in the absence of clear pathology, diagnosis of pain disorder resulting solely from a medical condition cannot be definitively diagnosed. For pain disorder to be formally diagnosed as a mental disorder then psychological factors are judged to have an important role in the onset: severity, exacerbation or maintenance of the pain in diagnostic criteria From my review of her background and her medical notes but summarising the other expert opinion in this case, there is nothing obvious from a psychological viewpoint that suggests a psychological component to her pain, and therefore she does not meet diagnostic criteria for pain disorder, in my opinion. The claimant s significantly elevated disclosure and debasement scores and her very low desirability score are suggestive of the concealment of positive aspects of her functioning and the amplification or exaggeration of negative aspects to her functioning, including pain and related impairment. I have no reason to suspect that this was an intentional or deliberate ploy. Experience of pain is very subjective. Pain consists of physical discomfort, the labelling and cognitive interpretation of the meaning of pain, the consumption of attention resources by pain and a set of strategies that are utilised in coping. The judge concluded by saying The conclusion I have formed that she [that is the claimant] is not lying. There is ample evidence, including from medical
5 -5- men, that she is suffering pain. She is plainly a poor historian, which is the way I regard her, completely overlooking the fact that she had returned to work for various periods after the accident because, as I say, I do not think that was a deliberate intention to mislead because it would be perfectly plain that her employment records would be with the defendant, as her counsel submits. But it seems to me to be not inconsistent with the psychologist s assessment of her general IQ. It is perfectly plain that, however, unintentionally, the claimant is exaggerating her symptoms of pain. Firstly, there was clearly an apparent resolution after two to three months, (inaudible) [in original] evidence of the account taken by the physiotherapist and later visits to her general practitioner in that period. Secondly, the descriptions given by her in her evidence in court and, indeed, in accounts to the various medical men she has seen are really not borne out by what I have seen on the evidence of her activities on the DVD. Thirdly, Mr Spooner s psychological testing suggested exaggeration and, as I say, I was impressed by his report, and that seemed to tally with the DVD evidence. Of course, the exaggeration may have a considerable effect on any claim for care provided by the family about which I heard evidence, not only from her but also from her husband and son. 7. The Claimant s case was advanced on the basis that: (1) The judge had found that her complaint of continuing pain was genuine albeit that she may have exaggerated the level of pain and her restrictions. (2) The pain had a temporal link with the accident. (3) Although the orthopaedic experts had not identified the precise cause of the pain, they had not identified any non-accident, pre-existing or supervening cause for her symptoms.
6 -6- (4) The psychiatrists had not identified any alternative psychiatric explanation for the Claimant s continuing problems. (5) The link in time, the fact that there were genuine problems and the absence of any alternative explanation was sufficient for a finding that, on the balance of probabilities, the accident was the cause of her continuing symptoms. 8. The Defendant advanced the simple and ultimately persuasive argument that the Claimant had failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the accident was responsible for the symptoms. It was contended that the Defendant had no burden of explaining the symptoms on some basis consistent with a non-accident origin. The Claimant had and failed to discharge the burden of establishing causation. 9. The Defendant s argument was accepted by the trial judge and upheld on appeal. The approach adopted by the trial judge, requiring the Claimant to identify the likely cause of her pain and the causative link with her fall, was supported in the Court of Appeal, it being found that the Claimant had failed to establish a causative link between her symptoms and the accident in question.
7 A reading of the Judgment suggests that the approach to the medical issues by the experts may have assisted the Defendant s position. However, the case illustrates the important components in arriving at a finding of liability in these cases and the importance of identifying and addressing the same. A reading of the case suggests that this exercise was performed well by the defendant s team and poorly by the claimant s. Foreseeability 11. It is highly unlikely that this issue will be of any importance or benefit to the defendant. Whilst it is a pre-requisite to any claim in negligence that injury of the type sustained was reasonable foreseeable, ever since Page v Smith, 5 recovery for psychiatric injury has been allowed where the Claimant is a primary victim provided some injury, whether physical or psychiatric, was reasonably foreseeable. 6 It is simply no answer for the defendant to say that only a minor strain or whiplash injury was anticipated from the minor fall or low velocity impact of the collision. 5  AC The absence of any legal distinction in relation to foreseeability has, to some extent, stifled the debate as to whether chronic pain should be viewed as a physical, psychiatric or even psychosomatic disorder.
8 -8- Causation 12. This is undoubtedly the most important legal issue in any claim of this type. It is crucially important for those facing these claims to identify and seek answers to the following issues: (a) Was the accident or incident, the subject matter of the claim, the cause of the claimant s injury? 7 It is irrelevant that the defendant s conduct is not the main or predominant cause. (b) Once the claimant has established that the accident has made a material contribution 8 to his/her symptoms, the defendant will be legally responsible for the loss flowing from the condition, subject only to any quantum defence. (c) The defendant may advance and thus will need to explore a number of causation issues relating to quantum. 9 (d) Absent the defendant s tort is there a chance that the claimant would have developed the same or similar symptoms? 10 7 Causation in this sense is established if the defendant s tortious conduct is found to be a cause of the development of the condition. See Shorey v PT Ltd  197 ALR 410. Also, Simmons v British Steel [2004 UKHL Any impact that is not considered to be de minimis is material. 9 The medical experts will have a crucially important role to play in this analysis. 10 This issue is not determined on a balance of probabilities. It is sufficient that the defendant show that there was a chance, even if less than 50%.
9 -9- (e) Where the claimant was vulnerable to symptoms of chronic pain and other disorders, it will be necessary to look closely at the likely development of any such condition absent the accident. (f) Although there is some jurisprudence to support the proposition that the tortfeasor s liability to compensate the victim only for the damage cause may require apportionment, even if on a rough and ready basis; 11 more recent judicial thinking suggests that this rough and ready approach to apportionment is unlikely to be applied to psychiatric injuries. Quantification 13. The apparent intractable nature of these conditions will very often lead to large claims in respect of loss of past and future earnings and the cost of care. The prognosis in respect of these poorly diagnosed conditions is a crucially important feature that must be explored with the defendant s medical experts. The Appropriate Medical Experts 14. This is a crucial, if not the most crucial, decision that needs to be taken in any case. 12 A focused approach is required. It is very often the case that an orthopaedic consultant is instructed initially at a time when the claimant s condition and prognosis is poorly understood, when an assumption is made that 11 Rahman v Arearose Ltd  QB There is likely to be an array of disciplines from which to choose, including orthopaedic, psychiatrics, psychologists, pain clinicians, neurologists, rehabilitation clinicians.
10 -10- the symptoms will resolve in the usual way and a prognosis is provided as a substitute for any proper attempt at a diagnosis. By the same token a hasty diagnosis should be avoided. Where the claimant s symptoms are not readily explicable within the expertise of the orthopaedic consultant, this should be stated without any attempt to make a diagnosis outside the expertise of the expert. An orthopaedic report that concludes with a psychiatric diagnosis might be viewed as helpful in understanding the claimant s condition but might later prove somewhat dangerous. It is important for the orthopaedic expert to be alert to the signs that the case may not be a simple or straightforward one. 15. A psychiatric opinion will very often be required. A correct understanding (and explanation to a court) of the range of psychiatric diagnoses for enigmatic chronic pain is crucial in order to avoid confusion. Somatoform disorders are recognised mental disorders. It is suggested that persons suffering from these disorders unintentionally produce somatic symptoms that mimic the medical illness. Within the somatoform disorders is a diagnostic classification devoted especially to those whose principal somatic symptom is pain. 13 Courts are generally not familiar with these concepts and require educating. Lawyers and insurers should not be shy in asking the medical experts to explain. If the defendant s team is confused the likelihood is that the judge will be too! 13 The diagnosis of this condition assumes that the pain is attributable substantially to psychological factors. The present of some general medical condition that may explain the pain prevents a conclusive diagnosis.
11 A pain management clinician and/or a psychologist may be required to advise on treatment plans and outcome. Early intervention is very often said to provide the maximum opportunity for recovery and/or assessment as to the genuineness and/or severity of the claimant s symptoms. 17. An early case conference with relevant medical experts is crucial. The role and boundaries of the various medical expert opinions need to be fully understood. Addressing the issues comprehensively will often involve a team approach. Much of the process of diagnosis is exclusionary. 18. The issue of somatising of symptoms and malingering must always be considered. 14 Although the issue as to whether the claimant is deliberately feigning or exaggerating a disability for the purpose of enhancing compensation is ultimately one for the court, many experts wrongly assume that they cannot express an opinion on this ultimate issue. This is incorrect. Instructing solicitors, insurers and the medical experts need to understand what the medical report can and cannot say An orthopaedic expert can and must comment on whether the claimant s complaint of pain and/or restriction of movement are consistent, and explicable by reference to orthopaedic understanding of organic pathology. 14 These concepts are often poorly understood by lawyers and judges. The distinction between conscious and unconscious manufacturing of symptoms is not always easy to identify.
12 The psychiatrist may be required to consider the complaint of pain, etc, in the context of opinion that excludes an orthopaedic or other organic explanation. A number of psychiatric diagnoses require the exclusion of malingering before the diagnosis can be reached. If malingering cannot be ruled out then a diagnosis such as a pain disorder should not be made A pain clinician will be able to cast an expert eye over the claimant s medical records with particular emphasis on what is said (and unsaid) in the context of any pain management programme or treatment that the claimant has undergone. The performance of the claimant during this period may be of crucial importance in relation to overall credibility. Surveillance Evidence 19. It is fact of life that surveillance evidence is here to stay. So prevalent is the use of surveillance that in cases where it does not feature it is often the subject of comment, it being argued that the claimant s credibility is enhanced by the absence of the same. 20. Surveillance evidence can play a crucial role in assessing and perhaps undermining the credibility of the claimant. The basic purpose of surveillance evidence is to assess the claimant s function in circumstances where s/he is
13 -13- unaware of the fact that they are being observed and to compare and contrast this with the account given or observations of the claimant at formal medical consultation or the contents of a witness statement. 21. Diagnosis of chronic pain conditions will often involve detailed examination of the claimant s lifestyle and functioning. Any inconsistency between this history and the surveillance evidence is likely to be readily ascertainable. There are crucial decisions to be made in relation to the timing of the release of surveillance evidence to the medical experts. The following points should be noted: 21.1 Release of DVD or similar material to the medical experts will trigger the defendant s disclosure obligation (even if inspection of the DVDs need not be given) Experts should provide a measured response to the disclosure and reporting on the contents of the surveillance evidence Disclosure of surveillance evidence should be full. A medical expert should be informed as to the circumstances of the DVD. Great care needs to be given in deciding what the medical experts are to be provided with. The basic rule is to ensure that the expert is not undermined or misled.
14 -14- Bringing the Case Together 22. A fully prepared defence to claims involving allegations of chronic pain should be able to provide answers to the following issues: (1) Is the claimant s condition wholly or partly due to any organic process? 15 (2) Is the claimant s condition explainable by reference to psychological or psychiatric processes? (3) In either event, is the defendant s tortious act 16 a medical cause of the claimant s condition? 17 (4) Are there any other causes of the claimant s condition? (5) Where other causes or potential causes are identified, what is the probable or likely evolution of the claimant s condition absent the defendant s tortious conduct? (6) Is the claimant s condition treatable? 15 The medical experts will need to be able to deal with emerging arguments of a biological process for the explanation of chronic pain. 16 In the sense of accident or injury. 17 The concept of contributory cause will need to be understood.
15 -15- (7) Has the claimant exhausted all reasonable treatment avenues? (8) What is the prognosis for the claimant s condition assuming that s/he follows all reasonable treatment options? (9) What is the likely reasonable cost of the proposed treatment options? (10) Where, as will often be the case, the issue of the claimant s credibility arises, the following issues must also be addressed: (a) Can the issue of malingering be excluded? 18 (b) Does the evidence suggest that unconscious rather than conscious processes are at play? Conclusion 23. Claims based on insufficiently explained persistent pain conditions are recognised as a compensatable form of personal injury. Awards are usually significant on the basis that the claimant s disability not only prevents remunerative work, but also demands care and assistance, ongoing medical treatment and change of accommodation. 18 In the context of a damages claim, the obvious gain is the prospect of a significant financial award and, of course, the ongoing financial benefits from the State.
16 There remains an element of judicial scepticism in respect of such claims and issues relating to causation and proof of injury remain at large in many of these claims. In Thorp the judge rejected the Claimant s claim notwithstanding a finding that the Claimant did have continuing pain emanating at the site of the original injury and those symptoms had some temporal link with the accident. The claim failed because the orthopaedic evidence excluded an orthopaedic cause and the psychiatric evidence failed to identify a psychiatric cause. 25. The position achieved in the joint medical reports was immediately helpful to the Defendant. The Claimant was left with the argument that, even though the mechanism and the cause of her symptoms were unexplained, the court should infer that the accident had something to do with the continuing symptoms and should be assumed to have caused them. 26. The rejection of the argument put that way is unsurprising; however, the more important feature of the case is the fact that properly marshalled evidence left the Claimant with this as her sole argument. 42 Bedford Row, London Winston Hunter QC 12 Byrom Street Manchester 12 June 2009
Advanced Assessments Ltd Expert witnesses and Psychologists A Member of the Strategic Enterprise Group 180 Piccadilly, London, W1J 9HP T: 0845 130 5717 Expert Witness Services for Personal Injury Lawyers
Legal Action / Claiming Compensation in Scotland This help sheet explains your legal rights if you have been injured as a result of medical treatment and the steps involved in seeking compensation through
A different approach to whiplashclaims in the Netherlands 4 th Annual Insurance Claims Management Conference, Berlin 22 nd & 23 rd January Author: Francie Peters When it comes to claims in the insurance
JAMES MILLER STRESS - EMPLOYERS BEHAVING BADLY? SEPTEMBER 2002 Reynolds Porter Chamberlain Chichester House 278-282 High Holborn London WC1V 7HA Direct Tel: 020 7306 3517 Fax: 020 7242 1431 Direct Email:
FACT PATTERN ONE The following facts are based on the case of Bedard v. Martyn  A.J. No. 308 The infant plaintiff developed a large blood clot in his brain at some time either before or during the
PERSONAL INJURY CLAIMS Frequently Asked Questions 1. Can I make a claim? If you have been injured because of the fault of someone else, you can claim financial compensation through the courts. The dependants
NEGLIGENT SETTLEMENT ADVICE Daniel Crowley and Leona Powell consider the Court s approach to negligent settlement advice. The standard of care owed by a solicitor to his client has been established for
WHY YOU SHOULDN T DISCLOSE ALL MEDICAL RECORDS IN PERSONAL INJURY LITIGATION By Justin Valentine 6 th April 2014 This publication is intended to provide general guidance only. It is not intended to constitute
A CLIENT GUIDE TO CLAIMING DAMAGES FOR CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE 1. INTRODUCTION Making a claim for damages (compensation) for clinical negligence can be a worrying and stressful experience. We recognise that
Contents Authors Acknowledgements Contents Foreword i Authors Note iii Picture of Kuthodaw Pagoda, Mandalay, Burma iii Introduction to the Text v 1 Essential Qualities of Medical Experts 1 1.1 Medico-Legal
Your Guide to Pursuing a Personal Injury Claim 2 Contents Introduction... 3 Important things that you must do... 3 In The Beginning... 4 Mitigating your loss... 4 Time limits... 4 Who can claim?... 4 Whose
Reform to Lost Years Damages in Mesothelioma Claims September 2008 Neil Fisher and Kevin Johnson John Pickering and Partners LLP Email: email@example.com 19 Castle Street Liverpool L2 4SX Tel: 0151
www.personalinjury.ffw.com Freephone 0800 358 3848 www.personalinjury.ffw.com Freephone 0800 358 3848 Medical Negligence A client s guide head and shoulders above the rest in terms of skills, experience
EXPLANATION OF LEGAL TERMS Affidavit: After the event litigation insurance: Application notice: Bar Council: Barrister: Basic Charges: Before the Event Legal Expenses Insurance: Bill of costs: Bolam test:
Information You are asking advice from Thomson Snell & Passmore about a possible clinical negligence claim. Such claims are complex and it would greatly assist your understanding of the issues if you read
Overview of Psychological Injury Euan Ambrose Definitions Recognized psychological illness as defined in DSM IV or ICD 10 Not grief, fear, sorrow, distress, anxiety or other normal human emotions (1) Primary
What is my claim worth? This is probably the most common and important question asked by a Claimant pursuing a personal injury claim. At the end of the day, it is the recovery of compensation for the injury
What is a medico-legal report? Medico Legal fact Sheet A medico-legal report is a document that contains the results of Psychological Assessment and Harvey Abbott s expert opinion, in a report that can
Justice Committee Courts Reform (Scotland) Bill Written submission from Clydeside Action on Asbestos In our view, the Court of Session should deal only with most complex and important cases and that most
www.ffw.com/personalinjury Freephone 0800 358 3848 www.ffw.com/personalinjury Freephone 0800 358 3848 Medical Negligence A guide for clients The team provides a first class service at all levels of experience.
Emerging Litigation 2013 OR As to each, a brief time in the sun? David Platt Q.C. Crown Office Chambers September 2013 A Question of Fashion? Passive Smoking Acoustic Shock! Acoustic Shock (1) Few cases-
PERSONAL INJURY CLAIMS Frequently Asked Questions 1. Can I make a claim? If you have been injured because of the fault of someone else, you can claim financial compensation through the courts. 2. Who can
Track Limits and Personal Injury Claims Process Department Of Constitutional Affairs Consultation With effect from 20 April 2007, the Department of Constitutional Affairs has entered into a period of consultation
Medical Negligence A client s guide What is medical negligence? This note is intended to give you a broad outline about medical negligence (sometimes called clinical negligence) cases. It is not a substitute
CAUSATION AND LOSSES Professor Lewis N Klar, Q.C. (Based on Klar, Tort Law, 4 th ed at 457-466, and Klar Causation And Apportionment of Losses, Alberta Court of Queen s Bench Conference, November 14, 2008)
Personal Injury Accident Claims 2011 You still need a Solicitor. Subsequent to the passing of the Personal Injuries Assessment Board Act 2003 and the Civil Liability & Courts Act 2004 Brian Morgan wrote
This is the author s version of a work that was submitted/accepted for publication in the following source: Stickley, Amanda P. (2012) Long term exposure to asbestos satisfies test for causation. Queensland
Williams v. University of Birmingham  EWCA Civ 1242 Court of Appeal, 28 October 2011 Summary In a mesothelioma claim, the defendant was not in breach of duty in relation to exposure to asbestos for
IN THE BIRMINGHAM COUNTY COURT 0BM71244 Civil Justice Centre The Priory Courts 33 Bull Street Birmingham B4 6DS Friday 27 th August 2010 Before: DISTRICT JUDGE WYATT B e t w e e n: EMMA CARLON Claimant
Workers Compensation Board of Nova Scotia Issues Identification Paper Chronic Pain: Causal Connection to Original Compensable Injury Date: April 16, 2007 Table of Contents Introduction.2 Background.4 What
Information sheet Pre-Action Protocol for Low Value Personal Injury (Employers Liability and Public Liability) Claims You have received this information sheet as it is likely that your claim will proceed
Employer Liability for Consequences of Teacher Stress House of Lords Decision Macrossans Lawyers, Brisbane, Queensland In Barber v. Somerset County Council the House of Lords recently delivered an important
Third Party Costs Orders against Solicitors 1. This article discusses the rise in applications against solicitors for third party costs orders, where solicitors have acted on conditional fee agreements
Partial regulatory impact assessment on a proposed bill to reverse House of Lords judgment in Johnston v NEI International Combustion Ltd The ABI s Response to the Scottish Government s Consultation 1.
Clinical Trial Compensation Guidelines Preface These guidelines contain two distinct sections: Phase I Clinical Trials Compensation Guidelines Phases II, III and IV Clinical Trials Compensation Guidelines
1 HOW TO ASSESS AND COMPENSATE PSYCHIATRIC INJURIES IN THE WORKPLACE Grace Lawson 1 Introduction Mental illness has become a major health problem in Australia. Work-related mental injuries have also become
Step-by-step guide to pursuing a medical negligence claim Suffering from medical negligence can be a painful and distressing experience for anyone. This short guide offers some advice to help people thinking
WELSH HEALTH LEGAL SERVICES CONSULTATION PROPOSED NHS REDRESS (WALES) MEASURE COMMITTEE Welsh Health Legal Services (WHLS) was established to provide a litigation and advice service to NHS Wales for the
CA on appeal from Brighton CC (HHJ Coates) before Waller LJ; Dyson LJ. 5 th April 2001. JUDGMENT : LORD JUSTICE WALLER : 1. This is an appeal from Her Honour Judge Coates who assessed damages in the following
COMPENSATION FOR PERSONAL INJURIES First Edition Peter Barrie MA Barrister, Recorder OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS Preface Acknowledgments v vi Table of cases xv Table of Statutes xxiii Table of rules, practice
DO NOT PASS GO DO NOT COLLECT $200 PERSONAL INJURY PLEADINGS IN ROAD TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS BY: MR NADIM BASHIR NEW PARK COURT CHAMBERS LEEDS LSI 2SJ TEL: 0113 243 3277 1 1. Introduction If there was any doubt
Consultation Document Whiplash Reform: Proposals on Fixed Costs for Medical Examinations/Reports and Related Issues Response from: British Vehicle Rental and Leasing Association River Lodge Badminton Court
IOSH Midland North District 26 th February 2015 The Civil Case Housekeeping Fire Safety please follow signs exit via stairwell and front door. Assembly point on car park. Toilets located on each landing.
April 2012. Damages for Mesothelioma Suffers This article considers a recent mesothelioma judgment, identifying key determinants for an award of General Damages and reminds practitioners of good evidence
The 2007 Rehabilitation Code Introduction The aim of this code is to promote the use of rehabilitation and early intervention in the compensation process so that the injured person makes the best and quickest
PROOF OF CAUSATION BY MATERIAL CONTRIBUTION BUT FOR BY ANOTHER NAME? 1. In tort the onus is on a claimant to show that the defendant's wrongdoing caused him actual damage. In a claim for personal injury
The Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act and its impact on Employers Liability by Terry Renouf, partner, Berrymans Lace Mawer Thank you for inviting me to speak today to CII members. I am talking to you
THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE SAINT LUCIA CLAIM NUMBER SLUHCV 2002/0329 BETWEEN: AUDLYN FADLIEN Claimant AND ATTORNEY GENERAL Defendant Appearances: Mr. Hilford Deterville
Richard Pearce CALL 1985 (Middle Temple) PRACTICE AREAS Personal Injury Clinical Negligence Professional Discipline Professional Liability Industrial Disease APPOINTMENTS Recorder (2004) Counsel to T&N
Manchester Claims Association Chronic Whiplash Thursday 03 rd July 2014 Scot Darling, Chief Medical Officer Premex Services Limited, Premex House, Futura Park, Middlebrook, Bolton BL6 6SX. T 01204 478300
Medical aspects of Whiplash and Minimal Impact Injuries ROBERT F. MCQUILLAN FRCSEd FFEM Embedded PowerPoint Video By PresenterMedia.com SIU TRAINING 29 TH APRIL 2015 Get ΔV from engineer Various interpretations
A Guide To Claiming Compensation For Clinical Negligence Introduction In order to bring a claim for Clinical Negligence, it is necessary to establish that the Doctor or Nurse involved in your medical treatment
THE FUTURE OF PERSONAL INJURY LAW SHAUN FERRIS CROWN OFFICE CHAMBERS 2 CROWN OFFICE ROW TEMPLE LONDON EC4Y 7HJ 1. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND We are currently part way through a tide of change that started with
MAKING A PERSONAL INJURIES CLAIM* GETTING STARTED DO I HAVE A CASE? The first step is to contact one of our experienced personal injuries solicitors and arrange a no obligation consultation. At the initial
Increasing the risk of injury and proof of causation on the balance of probabilities Sandy Steel A risk is a probability of a negative outcome. 1 The concept of risk plays several distinct roles in relation
Munkman on Damages for Personal Injuries and Death Twelfth edition Gordon BA (Warwick) of Lincoln's Inn, Barrister Foreword to the twelfth edition by Julian Goose QC Preface to the twelfth edition Preface
WESTERN AUSTRALIAN FEDERATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT SERVICES (WAFSAS) FORUM 4 October 2005, Perth Criminal Injuries Compensation By Helen Porter, Office of Criminal Injuries Compensation. INTRODUCTION In this
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Wilma Coddington, : : No. 1226 C.D. 2012 Petitioner : Submitted: November 16, 2012 v. : : Workers' Compensation Appeal : Board (Lynchholm Holsteins and : State
highways express Helping you manage your Highways claims Introduction Highway authorities are facing increasing pressure to provide high quality highway services while maintaining tight control of costs
GUIDE TO PERSONAL INJURY/ACCIDENT CLAIMS At Richard Grogan & Associates we have Solicitors with significant experience and expertise who will advise and guide you through all matters relating to bringing
Equalities briefing five: Perceived discrimination : the scope of the definition of disability Rachel Crasnow, a leading member of the Cloisters employment and discrimination team examines to what extent
TEXTILE INDUSTRY DEAFNESS CLAIMS A. JOHN WILLIAMS John has extensive experience of industrial accident & industrial disease work mainly (but not exclusively) for Insurers. These include the following types
MEDICAL REPORT SOLICITOR'S REF INSTRUCTIONS FROM CLIENT'S NAME ADDRESS ACC/675/413 Smith and Smith Solicitors Janet Jones 18 Cross Drive, Cheadle Hulme, Cheadle DOB 09 August 1955 DATE OF ACCIDENT 01 September
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA No. 98-C-1403 WILLIS THOMAS Versus TOWN OF ARNAUDVILLE PER CURIAM* This is a workers compensation case. The workers compensation judge found plaintiff failed to establish a work-related
Serial 137 Personal Injuries (Civil Claims) Bill 2003 Dr Toyne A BILL for AN ACT to provide for the economical and early resolution of claims for damages for personal injuries before proceedings are commenced,
: A guide to making a claim 2 Our guide to making a clinical negligence claim At Kingsley Napley, our guiding principle is to provide you with a dedicated client service and we aim to make the claims process
Case Studies relating to privilege and solicitors Downloaded from the website of the Data Protection Commissioner on 26 th July, 2011. 6/2001 CASE STUDY 6/01 Legal firm identification of source of personal
1 CLAIM HISTORY AND APPEAL PROCEEDINGS: The Worker was employed in a coal mine operation from 1978 until 2001, primarily as a long wall electrician. He was also a member of the mine rescue team (a Drägerman
Making Information a Claim Technology for Compensation Solutions as a Result 1. Basic Principles In our legal system, the injured party (the claimant) must prove his or her case by producing appropriate
Damages Discovery Instructors: Gary M. Gilbert Ernest C. Hadley EXCEL 2009 1 1 Basics of Discovery What you absolutely need: 29 C.F.R. 1614.109(d); EEOC Management Directive 110, Chapter 7; EEOC Handbook
Compensation Claims Relating to Chronic Pain Part One: The Context of Litigation Julian Benson 1a, Michael Spencer 2, Andreas Goebel 3, Rajesh Munglani 4 Keywords Chronic pain, personal injury, compensation
Causation for nursing Abstract This article considers the application of the tests of factual and legal causation to cases of medical negligence. It is argued that in light of the recent development of
Accidents at Work Everything you need to know Falling from ladders, slipping on a wet floor, lifting a heavy item, cutting yourself on a machine. Even in the 21st Century the workplace is still dangerous
PRE-ACTION PROTOCOL FOR LOW VALUE PERSONAL INJURY (EMPLOYERS LIABILITY AND PUBLIC LIABILITY) CLAIMS Contents SECTION I - INTRODUCTION Definitions Paragraph 1.1 Preamble Paragraph 2.1 Aims Paragraph 3.1
WikiLeaks Document Release February 2, 2009 Congressional Research Service Report RS20519 ASBESTOS COMPENSATION ACT OF 2000 Henry Cohen, American Law Division Updated April 13, 2000 Abstract. This report
Thomas J. Kibbie v. Killington/Pico Ski Resort (February 5, 2013) STATE OF VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Thomas J. Kibbie Opinion No. 03-13WC v. By: Jane Woodruff, Esq. Hearing Officer Killington/Pico Ski
Legal Discussion on Tipp FM with Orlagh Wafer 22 nd January 2013 Road Traffic Accidents Do s and Don ts & the Legal Process Introduction As the temperatures are dropping and the roads are becoming more
1 0 1 0 1 IN THE MANCHESTER COUNTY COURT No.QT0 1 Bridge Street West Manchester M0 DJ 0 th November B e f o r e:- DISTRICT JUDGE MATHARU COMBINED SOLUTIONS UK Ltd. (Trading as Combined Parking Solutions)
LC Paper No. CB(2)517/05-06(01) SUBMISSION OF THE LAW SOCIETY S WORKING PARTY TO THE LEGCO LEGAL AFFAIRS PANEL REGARDING THE OPERATIONS OF RECOVERY AGENTS IN HONG KONG 1. This is a submission of the Recovery
LEXIS NEXIS WEBINAR 17.9.13 ASBESTOS UPDATE THE SHIFTING SANDS OF CAUSATION INTRODUCTION: 1. The issue of causation has long been and continues to be a difficult one for industrial disease claims, and,