Bob Chris was fifty three once he injured his lower back while serving to to manually move an oversized piece of machinery at work. He had ne’er antecedently suffered with back pain and thought that his back would before long recover. When it showed no signs of improvement over subsequent few weeks, he attended his physician, who prescribed a medication, Diclofenac, and referred him for physiatrics. The physiatrics at the start provided short term relief of his symptoms, however many weeks when it wasn’t helping in any respect, thus he stopped attending.
He had been on lighter duties at work, however was currently even troubled to deal with those. His physician thus signed him off sick.
For now he contacted a claims company whose publicity he saw within the local newspaper. They sold-out his claim onto biggest law firm of solicitors, who suggested him that he had affordable prospects of succeeding during a claim against his employers. His boss insurance firm punctually admitted that his employer was at fault for the accident. The solicitors taught an orthopedical operating surgeon through a medical agency to look at Bob Chris and prepare a report. The opinion of the orthopedical operating surgeon was that Bob Chris was unlikely to form a full recovery which he wouldn’t be ready to come back to his previous employment and would need to notice a less physically strict job. However, the orthopedical operating surgeon went on to mention that in his opinion, Bob Chris would have developed low back pain in any event among five years, albeit he had not been concerned in the accident. This opinion meant, on the face of it, that Bob Chris would solely be paid for losses sustained within the initial 5 years following the accident. Understandably, Bob Chris was terribly sad with the written report, significantly as he had ne’er suffered with back pain before the accident. He asked his solicitors if they may challenge the medical opinion. He suggested that he either had to just accept the advisor’s opinion or get a second opinion from another consultant, however was told that he would need to pay money for that himself. Bob Chris contacted Jeremy Diamond the personal Injury lawyers. He taught us to require over the conduct of his claim. We wrote to his solicitors and obtained their file. Upon reviewing the file and therefore the medical proof, a few of things were quickly apparent. The orthopedical operating surgeon was a knee specialist, not a spinal operating surgeon. He had advised that the accident had merely accelerated underlying chronic changes in his spinal. This was despite Bob Chris has no documented reports of back pain or creating any more investigations like requesting x-rays or an tomography scan.
We opted against speaking or writing to the orthopedical operating surgeon, as he was clearly an inappropriate medical examiner provided that he wasn’t a spinal specialist and Bob Chris clearly had current spinal symptoms. We so taught a nationally revered spinal operating surgeon. He requested an tomography scan and discovered that the reason for Bob Chris’s back pain was a body part prolapse. He went on to mention that “I think about it unlikely that surgery goes to improve his symptoms and after all he’s doubtless to suffer with symptoms at the same level for the remainder of his life”. Clearly, Bob Chris was distressed that his symptoms were currently doubtless to be permanent. However, at least we currently had medical proof that may facilitate to confirm that he was properly paid. The insurance firm commissioned their own medical proof from another spinal operating surgeon. His written proof was not favorable to Bob Chris’s claim. We tend to thus organized for the 2 spinal surgeons to satisfy to discuss their variations. Following that meeting, the opposite spinal operating surgeon had affected his position more towards the spinal surgeon taught by us. We were so fairly assured that if the matter went to trial, the judge was a lot of doubtless to favor the opinion of our spinal operating surgeon. We proceeded to organize full details of Bob Chris’s claim, with supporting proof. The claim enclosed lost earnings for his considerably reduced earning capability within the remaining eleven years till his retirement, the reality that he would be at a disadvantage in the employment market ought to he lose his job, and therefore the value of future care necessities. These round table discussions, his claim settled for £209,000.
Diamond & Diamond Law 