The defendants had suggested three doctors to examine the claimant. The claimants suggested a Dr P to prepare a report, but when asked for his CV instructed him anyway. The defendant’s unqualified motor examiner said the accident had occurred at less than a speed sufficient to cause injury. The doctor described whiplash. The defendants wished to argue fraud, and sought directions accordingly.
Held: The court gave guidance on the admission of additional expert evidence, and as to the relationship of pleading to evidence. Brooke LJ said: ‘To obviate such difficulties in future, and to ensure that factual issues in medical cases are economically and efficiently tried, the following procedure should be adopted. First, a party who seeks to contradict a factually pleaded case on the basis of medical records or reports should indicate that intention in advance, either by amendment of his pleadings or by informal notice. Then, the opposite party must indicate the extent to which they take objection to the accuracy of the records. When the area of dispute is identified, a decision will have to be taken as to whether the records need to be formally proved.’
Judges:
Brooke LJ
Citations:
[2005] EWCA Civ 1510, [2006] 2 All ER 303
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Casey v Cartwright CA 5-Oct-2006
There had been a low impact traffic accident, with conflicting evidence as to the damages suffered and capable of beingcaused by such an accident. The court considered the correct practice for the court in allowing additional expert evidence in . .
Cited – Charnock and Others v Rowan and Others CA 20-Jan-2012
14 passengers in a bus hit from behind at a slow speed had all claimed whiplash injury. The expert had said that the accepted speed required to produce such an injury was a change of 3mph, which would require an impact at 30mph, whereas the evidence . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Personal Injury, Litigation Practice
Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.235724
