Commentary
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.
If there is a question as to whether the claimant qualifies to participate in the Invictus Games on the basis of being wounded, injured, or ill as a direct consequence of her military service there may be further scope for expert evidence.
To continue reading you must be an EWI member, become a member and access exclusive content.
Already a member? Login