Standard of proof for personal injury

star-dust_2

Hi, it is my understanding that the standard of proof for making/disputing a personal injury claim would be "balance of probabilities" am I correct?
The reason I ask is that I have an injury caused by an incident. I advised my GP of the injury and sought advice at a hospital attendance,but was not referred to an Ophthalmmologist, until many months after the incident. (It was not one of my most serious injuries)
The Ophthalmologist did not have the benefit of or sight of my medical records and has provided a report stating the injury may or may not be related to the incident. Would I be correct in saying that in the absence of any disease or injury etc. prior to the incident, and no other contributing factors to cause the injury, the injury should be considered and reasonably believed, on the "balance of probabilities" to have been as a result of the incident?
Thank you

mattymoo

"Balance of probablilities" relates to the burden of proof needed to prove negligence in a civil law suit. "Beyond reasonable doubt" is the standard needed in criminal cases.

If you put numerical values on these, BOP = 51%, BRD = 81%.

You do however need to prove causation and that might be an issue. Hopefully the paper trail, e.g. GP visit shortly after accident should go some way to proving the two are related. The opthalmologist is possibly just covering their own back due to the delay between the two.

Crazy_Jamie

The Ophthalmologist should have had sight of your previous medical records in preparing his report, because obviously he cannot be expected to definitively determine what caused the injury without knowing your past medical history. Of course if there is no previously existing medical condition or event that could have caused the injury, and the accident could have caused the injury, you are right in saying that on the balance of probabilities it would be the accident that caused the injury. But he has not seen the medical records, so he has concluded that the accident could have caused the injury, but without seeing the previous medical records he cannot conclude whether, on the balance of probabilities, it did cause the injury. Realistically he should now be sent your previous medical records so that he can update his report and reach a definitive conclusion as to causation.

star-dust_2

A big thank you to Crazy Jamie & Mattymoo for their replies.
I have taken your advice and approached my GP, she is most helpful and is sending details/copies of my medical history to the Ophthalmologist and ask him to review his previous comments having viewed my records.
I am quite fed up with my solicitor - just appears to want to send me for all sorts of retrospective specialist reports, (accident was a few years ago) my injuries have already been confirmed by GP and the specialists that I have been referred to for treatment. Therefore I cant see how a commissioned report can accurately reflect my injuries from a few years ago!
Specialists, I have been referred to, have all volunteered to write reports for my solicitor (think they feel a bit sorry for me as I have suffered injuries and other losses and not as yet recieved any form of compensation - not even my excess) but he insists on the £500 specialist reports!! If they are not accepted by the opposing insurance company - I have to pay for them !!!
I am worried that all these cost will not be acceptable to the opposing insurance company and am therefore concerned, I also appreciate that my solicitor shold be working in my best interests and making sure my claim is water-tight, but I wonder if he is being over excessive ?!
Thanks very much again for all your help, much appreciated.

Crazy_Jamie

Presumably your solicitor has put After The Event (ATE) Insurance in place for you? If so you do not need to worry about those extra costs.

You'd be surprised at the range of medical experts that can be brought in for a personal injury claim, especially a serious one with an injury lasting several years or more. Your solicitor will no doubt have his/her preferred experts, and whilst those experts will deal with what your injury was like, the most important aspect is the prognosis and what it will be like. It's the prognosis of a long standing injury that can potentially have the most impact on general damages.

You mention that you haven't received any compensation. Are you struggling financially? If so you can request an interim payment from the other side if liability has been admitted.

mattymoo

Star-dust - the solicitors and insurers use selected medical experts in various fields. They are selected for their expertise in that field PLUS their willingness to give evidence in a courtroom and face cross examination. A half way decent barrister could rip an inexperienced experts evidence to shreds in under 15 minutes. This is partly why the report from your GP is not considered sufficient.

Co-operate with the solicitor and attend the medical exams, fully armed with dates and the like. They are working on your behalf and as crazy jamie says, they want to work out the prognosis so that your claim is not undervalued.

SolicitorMidlands

You must have an independent report regardless of what your GP or treating consultants say. Your solicitor is following procedure.

star-dust_2

CRAZY JAMIE - I have never heard of After Event Insurance, can you please tell me more ? I have asked my solicitor to ask for an interim, but she says that I need to get all my medical reports to the other side before they will pay for anything! They did offer me the excess, but I was tto traumatised to cash cheque at the time. I have provided my solicitor with my wage slips, receipts etc. for my losses that can be proven on paper, the other side have approached my employer for my wages losses - so I know they have this. My solicitor still says that they wont give me an interim until it has been proven I was off work due to the accident - which is rediculous due to the fact I know that all my sick lines with my employer state RTA. I can see all the evidence that links everything in, therefore I cant understand why my solicitor just doesnt want to send it on - let the other side have the chance to look stuff over and dispute if they see fit - I have evidence of everything and therefore have no concerns - am I wrong??!!Thanks
SOLICITORMIDLAND - I fully appreciate my solicitor would be following proceedure - but how can a retrospective report hold more weight than a report form the specialist who treated me at the time ? I was sent to an "independent" consultant (not in relation to the eye injury, for something elese) of my solicitors choice 2 years after the accident and he contradicted the medical specialist who treated me following the accident. So, you can probably see why I find this most confusing !! How can someone who sees me 2 years on from the accident, given an "opinion" that contradicts the specialists who treated me from the date of accident. The "so called" selected consultant did have my full medical records, I fail to understand how his "opinion" can over ride the reports & treatment given to me from the date of accident.

MATTYMOO - thanks again for your advice, my original solicitor has left the company and I have a new solicitor, who I must say appears more helpful, understanding and knowledgeable. I do feel that I have to take matters into my own hands due to the length of time the claim is taking, I am having great difficulty doing this as it was a particularly bad accident, where I nearly lost my life. I am still receiving psychological assistance due to the mental trauma I suffered and I find the whole thing very very difficult to deal with. I am co-operating beyond co-operation!! It has now become my "second job" staying up until all hours to try to gain more information to assist my solicitor.