Defendant's Solicitors Granted Application for Medical Evidence

Saversue

I was involved in a no fault accident over 3 years ago, and have received treatment for ongoing injuries, and have medical reports from experts arranged through my solicitors.
Having refused the final offer my case had been due to go to Court.
However the defendant's solicitors are now questioning my experts medical evidence (a Professor and a Consultant) and have applied to the court for a re-examination, by their own chosen expert.

My solicitor says this is quite unusual and the court will have to decide which report they consider to be the most accurate.

Has anyone any experience of this, and why would this action have been taken?

The defendants expert asked me very different questions and even though he is supposed to be impartial, I am worried that it now feels like I am on trial, not the defendant, who has always admitted liability.

mikey72

Saversue wrote: »

I was involved in a no fault accident over 3 years ago, and have received treatment for ongoing injuries, and have medical reports from experts arranged through my solicitors.
Having refused the final offer my case had been due to go to Court.
However the defendant's solicitors are now questioning my experts medical evidence (a Professor and a Consultant) and have applied to the court for a re-examination, by their own chosen expert.

My solicitor says this is quite unusual and the court will have to decide which report they consider to be the most accurate.

Has anyone any experience of this, and why would this action have been taken?

The defendants expert asked me very different questions and even though he is supposed to be impartial, I am worried that it now feels like I am on trial, not the defendant, who has always admitted liability.

To be fair, you are on trial.
You've claimed for injuries, and the insurance company are confirming that you are as you claim.
No different than checking your car for damage when you put in a claim.

PNPSUKNET

its because insurance companys are now aware, some of these crash doctors dont even examine patients. Nothing to hide show them

Saversue

mikey72 wrote: »

To be fair, you are on trial.
You've claimed for injuries, and the insurance company are confirming that you are as you claim.
No different than checking your car for damage when you put in a claim.

PNPSUKNET wrote: »

its because insurance companys are now aware, some of these crash doctors dont even examine patients. Nothing to hide show them

Thanks for the replies, but having been through many hours of medicals already I have pleanty of evidence in my favour. Non of which is from "crash doctors".

PNPSUKNET

bigger payout if they can confirm for themself, if it was the other way around wouldnt you want to be given the option?

mikey72

Saversue wrote: »

Thanks for the replies, but having been through many hours of medicals already I have pleanty of evidence in my favour. Non of which is from "crash doctors".

I wasn't implying you had, but it would be the same for any claim. It's fair that the insurers can send an assessor out to verify claims, and you can employ a loss adjuster to argue.

Crazy_Jamie

Saversue wrote:

My solicitor says this is quite unusual and the court will have to decide which report they consider to be the most accurate.

It is unusual relatively speaking, because in most personal injury cases there is only one expert, or a joint expert. But both sides having experts is more common in higher value cases. Your symptoms lasting for over three years certainly puts you in a higher category than the majority of cases where injuries settle within the year, so I wouldn't necessarily call it unusual for the Defendant's to obtain their own medical evidence in this kind of case. It does happen.

Saversue wrote:

Has anyone any experience of this, and why would this action have been taken?

Chances are it has been taken not because they think that you are lying, or anything similar, but just because the Defendant wants a second opinion as to the severity of your injuries and how they are going to develop in future. It is as simple as that.

Saversue wrote:

The defendants expert asked me very different questions and even though he is supposed to be impartial, I am worried that it now feels like I am on trial, not the defendant, who has always admitted liability.

Again, it's not necessarily your view that the Defendant has issues with. Given that it has lasted for over three years your injuries are clearly reasonably complex. It is more likely that the Defendant takes issue with the view of your medical experts rather than your view specifically, hence why they want a second opinion. The Defendant may well suspect that you are exaggerating your injuries, but unless they are actually alleging fraud then this is just par for the course with higher value quantum issues and nothing for you to worry about. All you need to do is to be honest, both with the medical experts and (if it comes down to it) the Court and let the legal and medical experts do their thing behind the scenes.

birkee

Yes!
Happened twice now, and both occasions involved getting their own medical evidence from their own appointed expert.
Their own experts are usually crap money grabbers sidelining from hospital work, and they will try and influence the accuracy of diagnosis in their favour.
Be prepared to have to travel to see their consultants. Claim expenses if it happens.

As long as your medical evidence is solid, you should be OK.

One of my cases involved a crap barrister though, and he was using pages photocopied from a book, to guide him. Three operations I had, the third of which involved having the front taken off my skull to repair a fracture, the Barrister fought the case as "fractured skull", and ignored the three operations leaving me with a skull deformity.

End to end, about 4 years per case to resolve.

Saversue

Crazy_Jamie wrote: »

It is unusual relatively speaking, because in most personal injury cases there is only one expert, or a joint expert. But both sides having experts is more common in higher value cases. Your symptoms lasting for over three years certainly puts you in a higher category than the majority of cases where injuries settle within the year, so I wouldn't necessarily call it unusual for the Defendant's to obtain their own medical evidence in this kind of case. It does happen.
Chances are it has been taken not because they think that you are lying, or anything similar, but just because the Defendant wants a second opinion as to the severity of your injuries and how they are going to develop in future. It is as simple as that.
Again, it's not necessarily your view that the Defendant has issues with. Given that it has lasted for over three years your injuries are clearly reasonably complex. It is more likely that the Defendant takes issue with the view of your medical experts rather than your view specifically, hence why they want a second opinion. The Defendant may well suspect that you are exaggerating your injuries, but unless they are actually alleging fraud then this is just par for the course with higher value quantum issues and nothing for you to worry about. All you need to do is to be honest, both with the medical experts and (if it comes down to it) the Court and let the legal and medical experts do their thing behind the scenes.

Thank you for this information. I have been examined on two occasions by one of my experts (a current professor and consultant) first interview one and a half hours, then about 12 months later, and, after further treatment for an hour. Also 2nd expert in a different Field for about an hour, (consul ant surgeon). In both cases I was seen in my home town, bur the consultants had travelled some distance, approx 100 miles and 40 miles respectively.

I had to travel to see the defendants expert and am now waiting for a copy of his report.

My solicitor,arranged through my insurance company, is based a couple of hundred miles from my home, so we have only corresponded by post, email and phone for the last three and a half years.

I believe that the Defendants Insurance company are keen to settle but the Solicitor acting on their behalf requested the new medical, so its interesting that you mention this is quite common in high value cases.

I need further treatment and the costs for this, together with the private treatment so far (as well as NHS) is adding to the required settlement.

Saversue

birkee wrote: »

Yes!
Happened twice now, and both occasions involved getting their own medical evidence from their own appointed expert.
Their own experts are usually crap money grabbers sidelining from hospital work, and they will try and influence the accuracy of diagnosis in their favour.
Be prepared to have to travel to see their consultants. Claim expenses if it happens.

As long as your medical evidence is solid, you should be OK.

One of my cases involved a crap barrister though, and he was using pages photocopied from a book, to guide him. Three operations I had, the third of which involved having the front taken off my skull to repair a fracture, the Barrister fought the case as "fractured skull", and ignored the three operations leaving me with a skull deformity.

End to end, about 4 years per case to resolve.

Hope that things turned out OK for you.
Yes I had to travel to see their medical expert. My main expert is far more highly qualified then theirs, that seems a bit strange to me.

alistair.long

You don't realy have a option, the defendants can examine you to verify that you are recovering etc. You should therfore co-operate and give him the reports so he can make his report like the others. If the new expert makes a report which is to diffrent, you can then get re-examined again by a diffrent doctor by your solicitors to verify who is wrong.

If they disagree with your report they will want to conduct their own.

You should comply as failure to do so may not rule in your favour, the judge will look at the evidence and he will make his own judgement.

Once the medical is generated by the defendants you are intitled to have a look and make some amendments so that it is correct.

And as you are getting examined before court their expert may say you will recover sooner to reduce the settlement, hence why you may want to do another report after.

Hope this helps.