Terry was a highly skilled tool maker for a precision engineering company. In 2012 he suffered nasty soft-tissue injuries to his foot in an accident at work. Rather than improving, as time went by his symptoms deteriorated.
His first solicitors obtained a report from an orthopaedic surgeon through a medical agency. This ‘expert’ could not explain why he was not getting better or why he was suffering excruciating pain, as well as a range of other symptoms. Nevertheless, despite this uncertainty, his solicitors produced a schedule of his losses and arranged for him to meet a barrister.
“His first solicitors obtained a report from an
orthopaedic surgeon through a medical agency.
This ‘expert’ could not explain why he was not
getting better or why he was suffering excruciating
pain as well as a range of other symptoms.”
The offer Terry’s barrister and solicitor recommended was £7,500. Understandably, Terry was extremely unhappy with both the medical expert’s opinion and the legal advice he had received. After some hesitation, he decided to speak to us. Following our meeting, Terry was happy with our proposed course of action and felt confident that we would be able to help him.
His first solicitors had not obtained his full medical records. This is vital in every case. We obtained and carefully reviewed these to enable us to tailor detailed letters of instruction to each medical expert. It was clear that Terry’s first solicitors and barrister had not understood his medical condition and had seemingly advised him that he had to accept, at face value, the opinion of the orthopaedic expert.
“It was clear that Terry’s first solicitors and barrister
had not understood his medical condition and had
seemingly advised him that he had to accept, at face
value, the opinion of the orthopaedic expert.”
As the claims process does not allow you to simply abandon a medical expert, even a poor one, we put questions to the orthopaedic expert instructed by Terry’s former solicitors. They agreed that the court would benefit from a specialist opinion from a consultant in pain medicine and a specialist pain psychiatrist.
As soon as those further reports were available, we made a successful application to the court and Terry was given permission by the judge to rely upon the further medical evidence, which had at last confirmed a diagnosis of Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS). This had a dramatic impact on Terry’s case. It recommended specialist treatment and supported his claims for domestic and related assistance. It also confirmed that his capacity for work was seriously impaired.
“As soon as those further reports were available,
we made a successful application to the court
and Terry was given permission by the judge to
rely upon the further medical evidence. This
had a dramatic impact on Terry’s case.”
Interim payments provided Terry with some short term financial security and also funded further treatment. Following treatment, he was re-examined by our medical experts, who produced updated reports with a settled long-term prognosis for Terry’s condition.
Terry had been able to find himself some light, part-time work. The opinion of the medical experts was that Terry should be capable of continuing with this for the foreseeable future. After properly collating his claims for past and future loss we prepared a detailed schedule of those losses to be approved by Terry.