Following last month’s case update by Professor Keith Rix of Brown v Morgan Sindall, several experts have offered further reflections on the use of validity testing in medico-legal assessment. Commentaries from Professor Michael Kopelman (neuropsychiatry), Dr Karen Addy (neuropsychology), Mr Daniel Friedland (neuropsychology) and Dr Kathryn Newns (clinical psychology) were published in the MAEP Expert Witness Healthcare Matters newsletter, coordinated by Professor Rix.

This follow-up brings together the key points emerging across disciplines. It also clarifies several areas regarding the early learning points given in the September case update. The discussion in this article refines those conclusions and reflects current multidisciplinary consensus. 

Familiar to all experts, this case illustrates how personal injury claimants can attempt to maximise their claim by dishonestly reporting symptoms and disabilities. There are few honest and experienced experts who can say that they have never been deceived by a personal injury claimant. The more experienced will avoid saying that the claimant appeared genuine, that they had no reason to doubt their account, or that they appeared to be honestly reporting their difficulties.

What assisted the court in this case was the findings of the experts that the claimant’s presentation was not supported by the objective findings.

This case has a more important message. An expert, having given an opinion that he has no reason to doubt a claimant’s veracity (not just a conclusion on the balance of probabilities, but beyond reasonable doubt), when he comes to change his mind, is under a duty to the court positively to make clear that he no longer holds that opinion. It is not sufficient to leave the judge to read between the lines. 

Debbie O'Connell v The Ministry of Defence [2025] EWHC 2301 (KB)