22 July Case Updates Expert evidence and the materiality of a risk Legal test, Consent to treatment, Orthopaedics, 11. Report Writing, 12. Responding to questions Although this is an orthopaedic case and in which given its preliminary nature the expert evidence was not tested, it is helpful for experts in general as well as orthopaedic experts. It sets out the law on consent as established in not only Montgomery but also in McCullough. It touches on orthopaedic experts giving evidence in cases outside their own subspecialty. Butler v Ward [2025] EWHC 877 (KB)
11 March Case Updates Degenerative or traumatic spinal damage? Psychiatry, Orthopaedics, Ireland, Neurosurgery, Pain Medicine, Paediatrics Radiology A common issue in personal injury orthopaedic cases is whether the damage of which the claimant complains is degenerative or traumatic in origin or a combination. This case illustrates for specialists in neurosurgery, orthopaedics, pain medicine and radiology how the court resolved conflicting expert evidence. It also illustrates the risks of reliance on the claimant’s self-reported history, especially if they have taken it upon themselves to research into areas of medical and legal expertise. Rezmuves v Birney [2024] IEHC 592
5 December Case Updates One tray short of a baker’s dozen: injury on the production line Orthopaedics, 11. Report Writing, 15. Giving Oral Evidence, biomechanics This case concerns an important boundary matter that sometimes arises for orthopaedic experts in relation to biomechanics and ergonomics. These are areas of expertise for which the orthopaedic surgeon’s ‘working knowledge’ may be sufficient, thereby avoiding the time and expense of instructing a further expert just as in cases where knowledge and experience of orthopaedics in general is sufficient and it is not necessary to instruct an orthopaedic sub-specialist. Swierzko v Mathiesons Bakery Ltd [2024] SC EDIN 43
14 November Case Updates The dangers of a considerable burden of expert work Orthopaedics, Paediatrics, 06. Rules and Regulations, 11. Report Writing, 14. Changing your opinion, 13. Experts Discussions and Joint Statements, 16. Criticism and Complaints, Pathology, Histopathology, Radiology The court found that a highly respected and hugely experienced histopathologist expert witness, who was overburdened with work, had made errors in his examination of the forensic material and closed his mind to possible or probable accidental causes for the injuries identified. London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham v G [2024] EWHC 2200 (Fam)
16 July Case Updates Williams-Henry v Associated British Ports Holdings Ltd [2024] EWHC 806 (KB) Psychology, Psychiatry, Orthopaedics, Pain Expert, 06. Rules and Regulations, 11. Report Writing, 15. Giving Oral Evidence, 16. Criticism and Complaints, CV A claimant who sustained a moderately severe brain injury when she fell off a pier was found by the judge to have been been fundamentally dishonest.
8 August Case Updates Scarcliffe v Brampton Valley Gp Ltd [2023] EWHC 1565 (KB) Care, Change of opinion, Orthopaedics, Team membership, Biopsychosocial model, 11. Report Writing, 14. Changing your opinion, 08. Working with Instructing Parties, 10. Records Assessments and Site Visits “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir” (John Maynard Keynes)
23 August Case Updates Jarman v Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust [2021] EWHC 323 (QB), 2021 WL 00622030 Behaviour of expert, Bias, Orthopaedics, Cauda equina syndrome, 11. Report Writing, 14. Changing your opinion, 15. Giving Oral Evidence Relevance: General Orthopaedics Topics: Bias Reliance on literature Cauda equina syndrome