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