PI Brief Update

Taking on the challenge: When the medical evidence is undermined - Natasha Patel, Solicitor, RTA, Express Solicitors

29/04/26. Personal injury claims often hinge on one main factor: the medical evidence. A recent case involving a minor, is a useful reminder of how Courts approach causation – and how both parties should handle disputes over obtained expert evidence.

The Claimant was a minor who brought a claim for damages following a road traffic accident. She was a rear seat passenger of a vehicle proceeding down a minor road, the vehicle was hit by another vehicle head on causing injuries to the Claimant. The vehicle she was travelling in was subsequently written off as a result of the accident.

The claim commenced on the MOJ portal by way of Claims Notification form, following which the Defendant’s admitted fault in full. After a number of attempts at unsuccessful negotiations to settle the claim within the 35-day negotiation period, the matter was issued CPR Part 8 with a request that the Court lists the matter for a stage 3 hearing pursuant to Practice Direction 49F to determine quantum for the Claimant.

At the time of the hearing, it became clear that it was the Defendant’s position to undermine the evidence and the Defendant’s counsel made submissions to the Court that certain injuries should be disregarded, as the Claimant’s medical records were not supportive of the injuries and, the Claimant hadn’t proved causation. The Defendant maintained their offer to the Claimant in the sum of £650.00.

The District Judge stated within his Judgement “having considered the medical evidence and submissions by counsel for both parties, the Defendant is seeking to undermine the evidence, they should’ve transferred this matter to Part 7 and raised part 35 questions if they wanted to dispute causation”. The Judge went on to state “I propose reminding myself to assess on basis of medical evidence. I am obviously not going to discount the psychological report because it doesn’t mention malingering or due to no mention in the records”. The Judge went on to make an award to the Claimant in the sum of £5,518.68 inclusive of interest.

The Court found that the medical evidence did support the existence of injury and causation, and therefore an award of damages was made.

Interestingly, this case highlights an important procedural lesson for Defendants; If it is the Defendant position that the medical evidence should be undermined, or that causation was not going to be established then stronger procedural steps should have been taken. For example, to transfer this matter to Part 7, which could then allow the Defendant to raise Part 35 questions to directly challenge the medical evidence. Rather than simply relying on primary submissions, this would have provided a clearer and more effective route to test the Claimant’s evidence.

For Claimant’s this case illustrates that strong, consistent medical evidence can successfully establish both injury and causation.

This case is a reminder that litigation success depends on not just the evidence itself but how effectively it is challenged or defended. Courts will follow the evidence, but they also expect the parties to use the correct procedural steps to test the evidence.

Image ©iStockphoto.com/cybrain