Peter was 53 when he injured his lower back whilst helping to manually move a large piece of machinery at work. He had never previously suffered with back pain and thought that his back would soon recover. When it showed no signs of improvement his GP prescribed an anti-inflammatory drug and referred him for physiotherapy, which failed to help in the long-term. He was struggling to cope at work and was eventually signed off sick.
At this point Peter contacted a national claims company whose advertisement he saw in the media. His employer’s insurance company duly admitted that his employer was at fault for the accident. The solicitors instructed an orthopaedic surgeon who believed that Peter was unlikely to make a full recovery, that he would not be able to return to his previous employment and would have to find a less physically demanding job.
“The orthopaedic surgeon said that in his
opinion, Peter would have developed
low back pain in any event within five
years, even if he had not been involved
in the accident.”
However, he also said that in his opinion, Peter would have developed low back pain in any event within five years, even if he had not been involved in the accident. This opinion meant that Peter would only be compensated for losses sustained in the first five years following his accident.
Understandably, Peter was very unhappy with the medical report as he had never suffered with back pain before the accident. He asked his solicitors if they could challenge the findings. He was advised that he either had to accept the consultant’s opinion or obtain a second opinion from another consultant that he would have to pay for that himself. Peter contacted BLB Solicitors as specialists in chronic pain. He instructed us to take over conduct of his claim.
“He asked his solicitors if they could challenge
the findings. He was advised that he either had
to accept the consultant’s opinion or obtain a
second opinion from another consultant that
he would have to pay for that himself.”
Upon reviewing the file and the medical evidence, we instructed a nationally respected spinal surgeon. He requested an MRI scan and discovered that the cause of Peter’s back pain was a lumbar disc prolapse. In his report he stated that the prolapse “was caused by the incident at his place of work“. He went on to say that he thought it “unlikely that surgery is going to significantly improve his symptoms” and that Peter was “likely to suffer with symptoms at a similar level for the rest of his life”.
Clearly, Peter was distressed that his symptoms were now likely to be permanent. However, at least we now had reliable medical evidence that would help to ensure that he was properly compensated to ensure his and his family’s long term financial security.
“Peter was distressed that his symptoms
were now likely to be permanent. However,
at least we now had reliable medical evidence
that would help to ensure that he was
properly compensated to ensure his and his
family’s long term financial security.”
The insurance company commissioned their own medical evidence from another spinal surgeon. His evidence was, as you might expect, less favourable to Peter’s claim. We therefore arranged for the two spinal surgeons to meet to discuss their differences. Following that meeting, the other spinal surgeon had moved his position more towards that obtained by us.
We proceeded to prepare full details of Peter’s claim, with supporting evidence. His claim included lost earnings for his reduced earning capacity in the remaining 11 years until his retirement (he had by then found lighter work, but on a significantly lower salary), the fact that he would be at a disadvantage on the employment market should he lose his job, the cost of ‘maintenance’ treatment, future medication and the cost of his future care and equipment requirements.