kelly

Kelly Cronin discusses: ‘Stage 3 Or Not Stage 3?’

I recently represented the Defendant at a Stage 3 hearing, nothing unusual in that. However, this particular Stage 3 hearing was extremely medical evidence heavy. There was an initial GP report, two psychologist’s reports, three letters from the same psychologist following queries from the Claimant and their representatives, two orthopaedic reports (the second of which was from a different orthopaedic consultant), a letter from the initial orthopaedic consultant responding to queries and complaints from the Claimant and his representatives and physiotherapy records.

The main issue arising was that the medical evidence was extremely inconsistent with injuries appearing and reappearing throughout the medical reports, often in a slightly different form. The Claimant also seemed to be in the habit of complaining that the medical experts had not included relevant information in their reports as evidenced by the obtaining of a second orthopaedic report which in the end was very scant and really reflected the Claimant’s self-reporting alone.

Giving judgment, it was found that due to psychological problems, the Claimant’s ability to accurately recall his symptoms and to report them consistently to medical assessors was compromised. I comment here that this was not necessarily borne out in the psychologist’s reports. Needless to say that the Claimant recovered a far lower figure for PSLA than was claimed owing to no weight being attributed to large parts of his medical evidence.

Appreciably the matter was dealt with as a Stage 3 given the length of time proceedings had taken and to save further costs and time. However, I wonder whether it was really suitable for Stage 3 at all given the significant inconsistencies in the evidence. My thoughts were that in such a case, particularly where there appeared to be a trend of a Claimant refuting medical reports and with multiple descriptions of injuries being given, the matter would better be dealt with at trial to allow the Claimant to be cross-examined. This would of course lead to higher costs and would open a Claimant up to the risk of a finding of fundamental dishonesty. However, one can only muse as to whether Stage 3 is really the appropriate arena for a 1 hour 40 minute hearing with so many medical reports. Of course, given the recent reforms, it is likely that such matters will be dealt with outside of the Stage 3 mechanism very shortly.

 

Kelly has extensive experience in Personal Injury matters.  She has a varied practice of Claimant and Defendant work and is regularly instructed for written advices as well as for hearings.  Further, Kelly also undertakes regular hearings in relation to liability which is either a forerunner to a Personal Injury decision or runs alongside it.  She is also well versed in the relevant costs matters including the application of Part 36.

If you would like to book Kelly, please contact one of her clerks:

Senior Clerk – Andy Reeves on 0113 213 5252

Talia Webster on 0113 202 8609

Joshua Duree on 0113 213 5246

Mike Alexander on  0113 2135254