Injury claim - quick question

adamc260

no-oneknowsme wrote: »

It seems that compensation payouts are getting a little on the hign side , I do agree. I have no problem what so ever with the people genuinely hurt receiving payouts but what about the people with their fraudulant claims.....surely if it continues our insurance is going to increase even further! :mad:

Spot on and everyone will jump on the bandwagon because Whiplash is the easiest thing to claim for... can't prove otherwise and no 'medical practitioner' is going to say you don't have whiplash as their biggest source of income dries up.

Crazy_Jamie

costaerer wrote: »

it all depends how quick you settle.

It doesn't, or at least not directly. It depends on the injuries and the prognosis period. In your example you're not going to get a higher settlement because you waited. You'll get a higher settlement because the medical expert has changed the prognosis period. The causal link is with the higher prognosis period, not the waiting. If your injuries had settled within six months (in line with initial report), you wouldn't have gotten any more by way of settlement for waiting. It is a simple choice with regards to all injuries as to whether a person settles early or waits to see if they do recover in line with the medical report. General advice should be to wait to see how injuries develop, but this is not always possible (and, indeed, usually isn't with more serious injuries). As such, this.....

costaerer wrote:

anyway, what im saying is, you dont know how bad your symptoms will get...mine were ok for 6 months then after 6 months came down on me like a tonne of bricks! dont settle 'early' unless your desperate for money. the doctors arent always right.

.... is good advice. Medical experts are human like anyone else, and are more than capable of making errors. At the end of the day they are effectively predicting the future, which is never an exact science. If at all possible people should wait for their symptoms to die away before settling their case.

Clive_Woody

Crazy_Jamie wrote: »

By way of valuation, can you confirm how that £3,300 was made up? And if it was solely damages for your injury, do you know whether or not a lower back injury was diagnosed as well as the whiplash? It may help others as a matter of clarification, because whichever way you spin it a simple ten month whiplash injury is not worth £3,300. Which tends to suggest three possible explanations; the award is for more than just the injury, the diagnosed injuries amount to more than whiplash, or the insurer has settled at a higher level of general damages to ensure savings in relation to costs.

I think the middle option is more likely, though obviously if everything points towards the latter option then that is something that is interesting indeed.

Sorry should have said the refund of my £250 policy excess was also included in the £3300 figure.

Just had another look through the medical report, symptoms reported were neck, shoulder, lower back and arm pain. Most significant sites of pain were neck and numbness in my arms (pins and needles). I have also had a lot of headaches (most days) since the accident. Summary was soft tissue injury consistent with whiplash.

I am not sure if me having the title Dr influenced the payout, but the medical report certainly lays it on heavily about "Dr Xxxxx reported...." etc

Crazy_Jamie

Clive_Woody wrote: »

Sorry should have said the refund of my £250 policy excess was also included in the £3300 figure.

Just had another look through the medical report, symptoms reported were neck, shoulder, lower back and arm pain. Most significant sites of pain were neck and numbness in my arms (pins and needles). I have also had a lot of headaches (most days) since the accident. Summary was soft tissue injury consistent with whiplash.

There we go; those two magic words boosted your award above the simple whiplash valuation. When lower back is diagnosed separate to whiplash it becomes a two site injury, and whilst you generally do not get the full amount as for two individual injuries, some additional amount will be included based on the severity of the lower back problem.

As I've said in previous threads, it is highly likely that no-oneknowsme's partner had a higher award for the same reason.

I am not sure if me having the title Dr influenced the payout, but the medical report certainly lays it on heavily about "Dr Xxxxx reported...." etc

It wouldn't have had any impact. In fact, the title 'Dr' suggests a GP, whereas for injuries of any complexity or severity (relatively speaking) a report from an orthopaedic surgeon would be the norm.

no-oneknowsme

Crazy_Jamie wrote: »

.

As I've said in previous threads, it is highly likely that no-oneknowsme's partner had a higher award for the same reason.

.

OH's report said "injuries consistant with whiplash and pain caused by impact to the chest aggrivating a underlying complaint".

So....maybe its the chest pain that cause the higher award then?

Who knows , we didnt complain lol

costaerer

Crazy_Jamie wrote: »

It doesn't, or at least not directly. It depends on the injuries and the prognosis period. In your example you're not going to get a higher settlement because you waited. You'll get a higher settlement because the medical expert has changed the prognosis period. The causal link is with the higher prognosis period, not the waiting. If your injuries had settled within six months (in line with initial report), you wouldn't have gotten any more by way of settlement for waiting. It is a simple choice with regards to all injuries as to whether a person settles early or waits to see if they do recover in line with the medical report. General advice should be to wait to see how injuries develop, but this is not always possible (and, indeed, usually isn't with more serious injuries).

thats what i meant!

Clive_Woody

Crazy_Jamie wrote: »

It wouldn't have had any impact. In fact, the title 'Dr' suggests a GP, whereas for injuries of any complexity or severity (relatively speaking) a report from an orthopaedic surgeon would be the norm.

Sorry, I meant the fact that my title is Dr (i.e. Dr Clive Woody) not the fellow who did the medical examination who I believe was some sort of glorified GP who has a lucrative sideline in producing medical reports for insurance claims.

Crazy_Jamie

no-oneknowsme wrote: »

OH's report said "injuries consistant with whiplash and pain caused by impact to the chest aggrivating a underlying complaint".

So....maybe its the chest pain that cause the higher award then?

Who knows , we didnt complain lol

More than likely. Again, chest injuries are a separate bracket. Normally a full separate award would require at least cracked ribs healing within a few weeks (that is literally the starting point), but in practice a less severe chest injury that is diagnosed separately would result in an award over and above the bracket for whiplash only.

thats what i meant!

I thought it probably was. Just thought it was worth clarifying

Clive_Woody wrote:

Sorry, I meant the fact that my title is Dr (i.e. Dr Clive Woody) not the fellow who did the medical examination who I believe was some sort of glorified GP who has a lucrative sideline in producing medical reports for insurance claims.

Ah, I see. Again, probably not, though for what it's worth I'd imagine that if there were any lingering notions that you may be exaggerating your injuries they would probably have been dispelled rather quickly given your title