EWJ June 2024 web - Journal - Page 62
The Need to Read?
To comply with their Part 35 duty to the court, is it necessary for a medico legal expert to
personally review the medical records?
The question fell for consideration by David Allen KC
sitting as Deputy High Court Judge during the trial of
the case pursued on behalf of PHJ v HMA (Unreported) which took place in October and December
2023 but in respect of which judgment has only
recently been handed down.
Conclusion
Given the vast number of documents produced in a
case such as this and in the face of ever increasing pressures to turn around reports whilst incurring reasonable costs, there is clearly justification in using a qualified
person to ease the burden by preparing a review.
Background
The case concerned a pedestrian v vehicle road
traffic accident which occurred in 2016 as a result of
which the claimant sustained a severe brain injury.
The Judgment emphasises the need however for Part
35 experts to make it clear in their reports whether
they are relying on a review of the documents as opposed to reading them personally as well as the name
and qualifications of the person who completed the
chronology.
Medical Evidence
During the trial, oral evidence was heard from experts
appointed by both the claimant and defendant
including eminent neuropsychiatrists.
The expert should then study the most important
documents for the purpose of forming their opinion.
Whilst their joint report contained many points of
agreement, areas of dispute concerning the type of life
the claimant would have lived but for the accident and
the extent of the need for further therapy remained
in dispute.
In addition, we suggest it would be sensible for the expert to make their intentions in this regard clear to their
instructing solicitor before agreeing to accept the case.
A copy of the judgment can be accessed here,
https://files.passle.net/Passle/59994aefb00e801a0c1447be/
MediaLibrary/Document/2024-04-15-12-33-41-476PHJvHMA.pdf.
As a result of giving evidence on these matters, it came
to light the neuropsychiatrist instructed on behalf of
the claimant based his reported views at least in part
on “a review of medical records, reports and statements”
prepared by his wife who is a neuropsychologist.
Author Gemma Quinn
Gemma is a senior associate in the catastrophic and
large loss injury team based in Manchester and a
member of the experts subject matter group.
In preparation for the trial however, the expert did
read all of the clinical notes.
If you require an expert call the Expert Witness
free telephone searchline on 0161 834 0017
Mr Ernest John Sinar
Consultant Spinal Surgeon/Consultant Neuro Surgeon
MB, ChB, FRCS
Consultant Neurosurgeon Consultant Spinal Surgeon, North of England Spinal Injuries and
Department of Neurosurgery. The James Cook University Hospital, Middlesborough,
Cleveland.
Experienced in all aspects of spinal injury including whiplash, back injury, spinal fractures,
spinal cord injury and degenerative disease. Also extensive experience in the management
of head injury and post traumatic epilepsy.
Extensive Medico-legal experience for Claimants and Defendants.
Also experienced in medical negligence cases and criminal cases.
Contact: Tel: 01572 724 972 Mobile: 07904 777 315
Email: Medipinion@yahoo.com
7 St. Alban's Close, Oakham, Rutland LE15 6EW
Area of work: North East England & East Midlands, Leicestershire,
Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire, Lincolnshire, Yorkshire, Northamptonshire,
Cambridgeshire & Nationwide on request
EXPERT WITNESS JOURNAL
60
JUNE 2024