The servicemen had challenged the awards made to them for injuries suffered in service. The SSD now appealed.
Held: The awards had been increased when it became clear that the SD had failed to take account of some elements of the injuries suffered, and the injuries had been reclassified by the Tribunal, with its medical experts, as complex. The SSD complained that the injuries had been assessed at the date of the hearing, and that injuries arising during the course of treatment should not be included.
Held: It was agreed that further injury arising from medical negligence would not be claimable, the chain of causation being broken. However it was not proper to identify separately the first and subsequent injuries, and ‘Frequently, there are risks that quite independent illness or injury may result from carrying out perfectly proper medical treatment. If the risk materialises, however likely or unlikely that may be, then in my judgment, the consequential injury is referable to the original injury in service and there is no break in the chain of causation. ‘ and ‘injuries which are consequential upon medical treatment should be compensated under this Scheme where they flow from risks which are inherent in carrying out that treatment. However, the immediate consequences of the treatment itself, such as pain and the physical intrusion which necessarily follows any surgery and is an intrinsic in the cure, will not merit any additional award. ‘
Keene LJ, Carnwath LJ, Elias LJ
[2009] EWCA Civ 1043, [2010] AACR 5
Bailii
The Armed Forces and Reserve Forces (Compensation Scheme) Order 2005
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Bwllfa and Merthyr Dare Steam Collieries (1891) Ltd v Pontypridd Waterworks Co HL 1903
A coalmine owner claimed statutory compensation against a water undertaking which had, under its statutory authority, prevented him mining his coal over a period during which the price of coal had risen. The House was asked whether the coal should . .
Cited – Igen Ltd v Wong CA 18-Feb-2005
Proving Discrimination – Two Stage Process
Each appeal raised procedural issues in discrimination cases, asking where, under the new regulations, the burden of proof had shifted.
Held: The new situation required a two stage process before a complaint could be upheld. First the claimant . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Armed Forces, Personal Injury
Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.375985