News Detail back to listing
A matter of opinion
- Oct 28, 2024
- Latest News
by Gemma Quinn, Clyde & Co
The case of Hamed v Ministry of Justice (2024) (Cambridge CC) concerned a claim for damages pursued on behalf of a prisoner who it was alleged sustained injuries to the left ankle, shoulder, back and jaw as well as psychological trauma when he fell from a top bunk.
While permission was obtained to serve reports from experts in all of the relevant disciplines, the only medical support for the claim came in the form of an opinion from an orthopaedic surgeon who examined the claimant just over three years post-accident.
Despite reviewing GP and hospital records, which cast doubt on the claimant’s account, the expert concluded he had indeed sustained the alleged injuries as a result of the accident.
Understandably, the defendant submitted a number of Part 35 questions and when subjected to cross examination at trial, the expert conceded the only evidence of what happened on the day of the accident came from the claimant.
In conclusion, the court found the expert had failed to comply with the requirements of Part 35 of the CPR despite signing a declaration to that effect.
In particular:n“It is not sufficient for an expert giving an opinion upon which a court may rely to simply state what his/her opinion is without justification for that opinion.”
While it was acknowledged the expert had been subject to some tough questioning, this was entirely fair given it exposed great weaknesses in the report.
As a result, the expert was urged to undertake some further training in medico legal report writing to ensure a full understanding of the obligations of Part 35 and duties to the court.
This case underlines the importance of practitioners casting a critical eye over the medico legal reports which are served, or they are planning to serve, which looks beyond the Part 35 declaration to ensure the expert has identified the evidence upon which their opinion is based, as well as provided details as to the range of potential conclusions along with any relevant literature.
“It is not sufficient for an expert giving an opinion upon which a court may rely to simply state what his/her opinion is without justification for that opinion.”
Gemma Quinn is a Legal Director in the catastrophic and large loss injury team based in Manchester and member of the experts subject matter group.