This case concerns the treatment of an ankle injury. Although the orthopaedic experts expressed fundamentally opposing views concerning the appropriate management of the injury and the court did have to resolve some issues by deciding whose evidence to accept, an unusual feature of this case was the significance of the fact that the evidence of the defendant orthopaedic surgeon evolved and developed during the course of the forensic process leading the court to the irresistible conclusion that the defendant's witness statement and his account at trial were almost certainly an amalgam of what the defendant thought and his expert’s opinion of which parts were found to have been copied and pasted into his witness statement. So, the court found that the defendant's account of his reasoning and recollection had been, no doubt unwittingly, influenced by expert opinion.

Ebanks-Blake v Calder [2025] EWHC 3327 (KB) 

One of the important differences between Ireland and other British Isles jurisdictions is in the procedures followed in personal injury litigation. This case is illustrative. If the plaintiff had brought his case in England or Wales, how would this case have progressed?

Keogh v O'Keeffe [2025] IEHC 26

The Claimant alleged that an accident five years earlier was the cause of the amputation of his lower leg. The judge criticised the Claimant’s orthopaedic expert, Professor H, for demonstrating at times a rather ‘loose approach’ to his expert evidence and a closed mindedness towards his evidence.

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)

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 

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

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) 

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.

“When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir” (John Maynard Keynes)

Relevance:                  General

                                    Orthopaedics

Topics:                        Bias

                                    Reliance on literature

                                    Cauda equina syndrome