R

The male claimant, 70 at time of settlement, was knocked down by a car, suffering leg fractures, internal injuries and a head injury. He retained capacity. He continued to struggle with day to day tasks and relied heavily on his wife for support. He was able to walk with a stick and was still able to drive. He managed to go on foreign holidays but tended to rely on other family members to go with him and his wife for care and assistance. Although he suffered from ongoing pain in his legs, the prognosis was that his condition would not deteriorate other than with the normal ageing process. His claim settled for £500,000. Two of his adult sons who witnessed their father's disfiguring injuries in the immediate aftermath of the accident brought successful secondary victim claims for the psychological effect this had upon them, recovering £15,000 and £10,000 respectively.

B

The male Claimant, 50 at settlement, was knocked over by a car late one night in August 2007 in Bishop Auckland. He suffered very serious injuries including a severe brain injury and multiple fractures which left him bed bound. There were no independent witnesses to the accident and the Claimant had no memories of it. He had been drinking that evening and the driver and two passengers described him stepping out in front of the car at the last second. Another recognised firm of personal injury solicitors had previously been instructed but, supported by an advice from counsel, had, at length, rejected the case. CWJ were instructed in autumn 2008 on a Conditional Fee Agreement. Liability remained an issue throughout. The claim was valued at approximately £2 million on full value. After proceedings were issued, the defendant’s insurers initially offered £300,000.00 but in June 2011 the matter settled for £800,000.00 which was approved in the Royal Court of Justice.

F

The female Claimant, 30 at settlement, had severe pre existing learning difficulties and epilepsy. In summer 2005 she became a resident at a house run by the defendant company. While providing them with a degree of independent living, the residents still required specialist care and the company provided live-in carers. The claimant needed to wear a helmet to protect her head when she suffered drop seizures and it was the responsibility of the carers to ensure that she wore it securely at all times. The Claimant had a fall on the stairs of the house on 5 December 2005, her helmet was not properly secured and she suffered a brain injury. The claim was complicated by the fact of her high pre existing dependency and therefore the extent to which the cost of any ongoing care and support needs would have existed before in any event which limited the overall value of the claim. Initially the defendant’s insurer put forward a lump sum offer to settle of just over £1.1 million. However, after demanding a periodical payment offer, the defendant then offered a lump sum of £220,000.00 plus CRU benefits plus periodical payments of £32,500.00 per annum increasing on the 80^th percentile of ASHE. The offer was accepted and approved by Master Eastman on 5 December 2011 in the RCJ.

C v S

The male Claimant was 17 at the time of the accident and 19 at settlement. He was the front seat passenger in a car driven by his friend when it overturned on a bend. He had left school the previous day. He suffered a bleed to the brain, fractured pelvis and vertebra, fractured ribs and internal injuries including loss of his spleen. He had not planned to go to university but in the September of the same year, started a catering course at college. It proved too early for him to focus on his future so he left in early 2010 and started an IT course later that year which proved successful and which led to a place at University starting September 2011. He made a good recovery from his injuries but suffered from intermittent back ache and would need to take antibiotics for the rest of his life due to the loss of his spleen. Despite good prospects, no obvious past loss of earnings, and a good prognosis, the claim settled for £150,000.00 which incorporated a significant Smith v Manchester/ future loss of earnings award.

C v G

The male Claimant, 49 at date of accident, 51 at settlement, suffered crush injuries to both lower legs when a car drove into him while he was standing at the back of his van loading tools. 2 ½ years post accident the bone in the right leg had still not united and there was an estimated 25% that he would go on to lose the leg. The prognosis was far from clear but the Defendant’s insurers called a joint settlement meeting. The Claimant put forward a claim based on him losing his leg and was not prepared to settle on a compromise basis of the leg being saved. Settlement was achieved at £1.25 million which reflected damages on the basis of amputation, including the cost of prostheses, significant future loss of earnings and care. Legal proceedings were not issued.

B v B

Woman knocked over by motorbike suffering head injury and then developed eating disorder preventing her from working - she retained her pre accident cognitive capacity. Complex issues on causation relating to eating disorder and pre existing personal issues. Made good physical recovery but still residual psychological issues at settlement, 1 month before trial. Case settled for £1.8 million reduced by one third to account for previously agreed contrib.

W and D

Both cases settled for £100,000.00 each. Significant in that they both demonstrated how Table A from 6th edition of Ogden can lead to much greater awards than a Smith v Manchester would have previously. In W the claimant suffered a broken wrist that led to her changing her career path. The new career promised higher income than pre accident but claim was presented on the basis that new career was within her pre accident capabilities and could be used as basis for significant future loss claim. The majority of the settlement represented future loss of earnings. In D the claimant suffered a broken ankle but was earning more at settlement than at date of accident, albeit in same career as electrician. He would previously have been entitled to a Smith v Manchester but using a Table A approach was able to settle on the basis of a significant future loss of earnings claim.

CW (CICA Claim)

Claimant was involved in two related incidents in 1995 and 1996. Previous solicitors acting until June 2007 when CWJ received file and progressed matter to appeal in 2009. In the first incident the claimant suffered a head injury and PTSD. In the second incident (involving the same assailant) claimant suffered no physical injury, just psychological exacerbation. The claimant suffered pre existing related problems which went to causation. He had suffered no loss of earnings. Claimant recovered maximum award for first incident (£500,000.00) and £144,000.00 for the second.

Clinical Negligence Case Studies

N

This case related to a clinical negligence claim brought by Mrs Hanly following negligent surgery and follow up treatment that occurred on and after 21 October 2006. The Claimant underwent a right oophrectomy and at this time her right ureter was caught in a surgical clamp. The right ureter was tied at the lower end leaving the distal end free to drain into her peritoneal cavity. This led to urine filling the peritoneal cavity over a sustained period of time.

Investigations into the cause of the fluid build up went on for over a year. Owing to this delay it meant that the Claimant suffered irreparable damage to her right kidney which had to be removed. In and around this time the Claimant also suffered a complete heart block, developed diabetes, urinary incontinence and a latex allergy.

Proceedings were issued, and whilst breach of duty was admitted causation as to the injuries and extent of the same were contested throughout.

The case was funded through a CFA with ATE.

V

This case related to a clinical negligence claim brought by A upon receiving negligent aftercare following surgery involving a laparoscopic subtotal hysterectomy and bilateral oophrectomy on 5 October 2007. Despite high residual volumes of urine being present in the Claimant’s bladder post operation  the Claimant was discharged from hospital without being taught how to self catheterise. This led to the Claimant’s bladder becoming over distended and causing her long-term bladder damage. In addition and owing to a misdiagnosis of the Claimant’s problems she was then subjected to an unnecessary surgical procedure involving the repair of the pelvic floor and the insertion of a Trans-Vaginal tape.

Proceedings were issued and liability disputed throughout.

The case was funded through a CFA with ATE.

W (A Child)

The Claimant was born at term following an undiagnosed breech at a late stage.  His parents were not given any choices regarding the mode of delivery and a decision was made to attempt a breech delivery with traction.  The delivery was lengthy and complicated and bradycardia (slowing of the baby’s heartbeat) was recorded.  The Claimant was born in a poor condition and needed resuscitation, taking his first breath after 8 minutes.  He developed abnormal movements during his first hours of life and was subsequently diagnosed with hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy as a result of profound circulatory insufficiency (starvation of oxygen to the brain) a few minutes prior to his delivery.

Liability was admitted by the Defendant at an early stage and the claim proceeds on assessment of damages alone.

The claim is funded through the Legal Services Commission.

S

The Claimant’s husband suffered a head injury following an assault and was taken to the First Defendant’s hospital, where he was inadequately assessed and discharged in a wheelchair to the care of his wife, despite being drowsy and unresponsive.  He was readmitted the following evening, having failed to recover and a CT scan was taken the following morning, which showed a significant bleed to the brain. The First Defendant sought the opinion of the Second Defendant’s neurosurgical team, who advised that the bleed was a small one and not for surgical intervention. The Claimant remained largely untreated in hospital over the course of the day. He was given morphine which prevented an adequate neurological assessment.  On the third post accident day the Claimant suffered a further, catastrophic bleed and was subsequently confirmed to be brain dead.

Expert evidence on causation from a Consultant Neurosurgeon found that the advice provided by the Second Defendant was incorrect in that, although the first bleed was significant, it was stable and surgery would have been the best course. But for the negligence, on the balance of probabilities the Claimant would have lived, albeit with some minor left-sided weakness.

A claim was advanced under the FAA 1976 on behalf of the Claimant and her two children (one of whom has special educational needs and epilepsy).  Unusually, there was no claim for loss of the deceased’s earnings since the deceased had given up his job some years previously to become a full-time carer for his son and wife, who has a long-term back problem. Damages were therefore awarded for bereavement the deceased’s loss of services as a gratuitous carer. 

The case was funded through Legal Expenses Insurance by RBS.

H

Claimant's abnormal smear was missed in 2003 and two years later a tumour developed causing her to undergo radical surgery leading to loss of fertility. At settlement she was clear of cancer and had returned to work. Future loss of earnings claim was made on basis of continuing disability although by settlement there were few residual problems. General damages were estimated at around £100,000.00 and claim settled for £200,000.00 which included past losses of about £30,000.00. Conditional fee agreement.

C

Difficult informed consent plastic surgery case involving liposuction and tummy tuck resulting in necrosis at site of surgery leading to long period of healing and abdominal scar. Odd entries in the notes led to a request to examine the original notes. This uncovered a number of discrepancies with the copy notes provided. Despite a denial of liability the claim was then settled for £55,000.00.

C

Obese patient aged 27 years with adhesions from previous operative procedures sustained bowel perforation during hysteroscopy and laparoscopic adhesiolysis. This was recognised by the operating Obs & Gynae surgeon who sought advice from a general surgeon. He did not attend but advised by telephone and was told that there was no evidence of a full thickness bowel perforation and that repair could be adequately performed. Within approximately 8 hours the Claimant became tachycardic and pyrexial. Her condition deterioriated but it was not until the third post-operative day that a second procedure was performed which confirmed extensive peritonitis. The patient died 5 days later. Liability admitted following investigation through NHS Complaints procedure. Total damages of £100,000 comprising general damages for the deceased's pain and suffering for approximately 10 days. Dependency claim approached on basis that the couple did not plan to have children, thus the deceased would be working full-time to age 60.  Loss of pension also awarded. CFA funded.