19 June Case Updates Do not leave it until cross-examination to reveal your true opinion Fundamental dishonesty, 10. Records Assessments and Site Visits, 06. Rules and Regulations, 11. Report Writing, 14. Changing your opinion The Claimant suffered serious injuries in a road traffic accident after the Defendant, who was driving out of a side road, collided with the Claimant’s motorbike. Despite being aware of surveillance evidence before preparing his last report, the Claimant’s orthopaedic expert did not reveal his true opinions on the Claimant’s malingering until cross-examination. Grant Greening-Steer v Derek Ainge [2026] EWHC 1239 (KB)
26 November Case Updates Not a fundamentally dishonest stroke victim Fundamental dishonesty, 10. Records Assessments and Site Visits, performance validity testing, 11. Report Writing, 15. Giving Oral Evidence, Test of Memory and Malingering, Thrombolysis, Stroke, TOMM, DRAGON score, Modified Rankin Scale This is an important judgment for experts instructed in cases where there is an issue as to whether thrombolysis should have been carried out following a stroke. The court considered a number of relevant publications. For experts in psychiatry and psychology, it is important as it illustrates how the court tests evidence in cases involving performance validity testing. Hakmi v East & North Hertfordshire NHS Trust [2025] EWHC 2597 (KB)
7 October Case Updates Read between the lines, judge Fundamental dishonesty, 10. Records Assessments and Site Visits, 06. Rules and Regulations, 14. Changing your opinion 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)
1 October News Scottish Medicolegal Conference 2025 Fundamental dishonesty, Scottish Medicolegal Conference 2025, Resolve Medicolegal, Assessment of Disability, How to Reduce the Retraumatisation of Claimants in, Mock Court Resolve Medicolegal and EWI held our annual Scottish Medicolegal Conference at the Grand Central Hotel in Glasgow on 19 September. The event featured great speakers and panels and lots of interaction with the audience of expert witnesses and legal professionals. It was a brilliant Conference so, with a number of the EWI team attending, we thought we’d note some of our key highlights.
19 December Podcast Podcast Episode 7: Review of 2024 Credibility, Range of Opinion, Fundamental dishonesty, 16. Criticism and Complaints, 10. Records Assessments and Site Visits, 05. Alternative Dispute Resolution, 06. Rules and Regulations, 11. Report Writing, 14. Changing your opinion, 13. Experts Discussions and Joint Statements, 15. Giving Oral Evidence In the last podcast for 2024, we look back at the ten key issues for expert witnesses that we've seen over the course of 2024, and highlight the ten things to look out for in 2025. From knowing and complying with your duties, to reevaluating and changing you opinion and handling fundamental dishonesty, this year in review has it all.
8 August Case Updates Deltchinov v Alliance Insurance PLC, Case No. G70YX802 (Central London County Court, unreported, 18 May 2023) Medical records, Medical experts, Fundamental dishonesty, 10. Records Assessments and Site Visits, 11. Report Writing, 13. Experts Discussions and Joint Statements “Fundamental dishonesty”