News Category 3
FREE CHAPTER from 'A Practical Guide to Psychiatric Claims in Personal Injury - 2nd Edition' by Liam Ryan

03/03/21. The law relating to claims for psychiatric injury is complex, varied, and hard to grapple with and can often appear labyrinthian. This is a practical guide for dealing with personal injury claims involving psychiatric injuries and is aimed to assist both the newcomer and the experienced practitioner alike.
As our understanding and acceptance of the nature of psychiatric injury has grown over the last two decades, so has the regularity of such claims appearing in practice as well as the varied ways in which they arise, be it a straightforward psychiatric reaction to injury or a complex stress at work claim.
This work breaks the topic down into practical and easily assimilable components to assist practitioners and supplement their knowledge through a combination of detailed discussion of the law, coupled with practical suggestions for practise.
This Second Edition is updated and expanded particularly in the areas stress at work and the latest developments in secondary victim claims.
CHAPTER TWO – DIAGNOSIS
The bedrock of any claim for a psychiatric injury, is identifying one’s presence. A psychiatric injury to be actionable must a recognisable psychiatric disorder, and will be found almost always to fall into either ICD 10 or DSM IV. The necessity for reliable, robust and persuasive expert opinion is always of importance, but so is the witness evidence of a Claimant.
The concept of general damages and the cause of psychiatric injury is in and of itself worthy of several books on its own. This chapter is designed to give a practical outline of and guide to the topic and how to approach general damages and injury, from a practical standpoint.
This chapter is not designed to replace the need for psychiatric evidence, but rather to act as a useful set of sign posts to help practitioners identify what they may well be dealing with in the claims they encounter.
Common psychiatric injuries
When assessing the value of Psychiatric injuries, the first port of call should be chapter 4 JSC Guidelines. In case of physical injury chapter 7 JSC Guidelines. (orthopaedic injuries) is often going to be used in conjunction with chapter 4 (A) JSC Guidelines. in assessing the dual nature of an injury.
The chapter and its brackets are very broad, and can encompass disorders from depression to agoraphobia. This work is not intended to give a full and complete breakdown of how and why every type of injury or disorder arises, but rather to set out a broad and practical roadmap so that a practitioner will, when meeting a Claimant, better understand and formulate their approach as to how to deal an injured person.
The JSC guidelines are a useful yardstick in the assessment of general damages, but not definitive. The bracket itself highlights that the following points need to be considered when looking at the entirety of the injury:
- The injured person’s ability to cope with life and work.
- The effect on the injured person’s relationships with family, friends and those with whom he or she comes into contact.
- The extent to which treatment would be successful.
- Any future vulnerability.
- Prognosis.
- Whether medical help has been sought.
Comparable cases are often referred to in settlement discussion and hearings but it has become increasingly obvious that they are reported for a singular reason, that they represent a “good result” for either the Claimant or Defendant. Therefore they have over the last decade become increasingly more partisan than of application, but still should be looked to for broad guidance. This chapter does not intend to recount, and analyse these for this reason.
The types of psychiatric conditions themselves, are as individual in their impact as the person they affect and this work does not intend to describe each and every type of disorder that can be suffered. Rather, the three main disorders which the practitioner will encounter are:
- Depression
- An anxiety disorder
- An adjustment disorder
It should be remembered that this work deals with recognisable psychiatric disorders. Injuries falling short or shy of this classification would be classed as a minor injury and fall into chapter 13 JSC guidelines, for example travel anxiety.
Depression
Depression is in modern society, a word that is sometimes thrown about. It’s not uncommon to hear someone say “I’m depressed” in relation to disappointment, but depression, as an illness is far worse. The symptoms of depression can include”
- A persistent and continuous low mood
- Feeling hopeless and helpless
- Low self-esteem
- Feelings of guilt
- Feeling tearful
- A lack of motivation
- Constant procrastination
- Suicidal thoughts
- Inability to sleep
Depression can also manifest with physical symptoms and these can include a number of points, but most notably:
- Weight gain or loss
- Constipation
- Unexplained aches and pains
- Feeling of no energy or vitality
- Low sex drive (loss of libido)
- Disturbed sleep
Depression is a common, and serious illness and in personal injury claims, it is not uncommon to see injured persons react to a physical injury or inflicted disability with some form of depression. It is also possible that persons who suffer from depression will be vulnerable to future relapses of their condition. Practically, the danger of this future deuteriation should always be considered, and contingencies made in any schedules of loss to reflect the same.
Anxiety disorders
Almost everyone at some point in their life is going to feel anxious, before exam results, speaking to new people or even going to somewhere new and different.
However, what happens when that sense of anxiety, becomes so heighted, and the person who experiences it, so vulnerable to an overly intense anxious reaction, that it starts to impact on their life negatively? That is one form of an anxiety disorder. Anxiety is (perhaps obviously) the main symptom of several other conditions which a practitioner can only be alive to, these include:
- Panic disorders
- Phobias – such as agoraphobia
- Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)
- Social anxiety disorder (of particular use in cases where Claimants have to deal with customers in their workplace).
Adjustment disorders
In practice, an adjustment disorder is one of the most common injuries encountered in psychiatric cases. They are often temporary, meaning that they will persist and improve over time, but in essence cover situations where, due to a stressful or traumatic experience, the affected persons varies their behaviour to deal with it. Most people will experience such a disorder in their life and it is often brought on by the death a loved one, the loss of a job or the ending of a relationship. The symptoms of adjustment disorders can include:
- A constant sense of anxiety
- Avoidance behaviours
- A constant feeling of upset
- Social withdrawal
- A lack of concentration
- Fatigue
Post-traumatic stress disorder
Post-traumatic stress disorder can be a crippling illness and is dealt with by Chapter 4 (B) JSC guidelines. A person afflicted with post-traumatic stress disorder often relives the traumatic event through nightmares and flashbacks, and may experience feelings of isolation, irritability, and guilt. As an initial point to assist early identification, persons affected will often display a combination of the following symptoms.
- Trouble sleeping,
- Suffer a lack of concentrations;
- Are irritable;
- Can be socially withdrawn;
- Have difficulty controlling their temper;
- Have an exaggerated startle response.
A core issue in a claim for post-traumatic stress disorder is that the injured person will have been exposed generally to events which have caused them to fear for their own, or another’s life, and physical integrity. The injury is often categorised by the presence of flashback. Practically, it can be helpful when dealing with a Claimants evidence to understand what these flashback are. They will often assist a medical expert in identifying what breach has been causative of this injury.
For example, in a case relating to a road traffic accident, the flash back will likely be to the accident itself. In a case of stress at work, it may well relate to specific parts of the Claimants experiences. The need to balance the issues of causation with breach are considered later in this work.
There is growing recognition that Post Traumatic Stress Disorder can result from many types of emotionally shocking experience including an accumulation of small, individually non-life-threatening events in which case the resultant PTSD is referred to as Complex PTSD.
Diagnostic criteria
The diagnostic criteria for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) are defined in DSM-IV as follows:
- The person experiences a traumatic event in which both of the following were present:
- the person experienced or witnessed or was confronted with an event or events that involved actual or threatened death or serious injury, or a threat to the physical integrity of self or others;
- the person’s response involved intense fear, helplessness, or horror.
These parameters fit almost always with any road traffic accident of moderate or greater severity. The criteria continue to describe the relevant factors required as “where the individual persistently re-experiences the traumatic event through the following criteria”:
- Continuous symptoms;
- Persistent avoidance;
- Persistent symptoms;
- Duration;
- Resulting effect.
Continuous symptoms
These are characterised as:
- Recurrent and intrusive distressing recollections of the event, including images, thoughts or perceptions (flashbacks).
- Recurrent distressing dreams of the event.
- Acting or feeling as if the traumatic event were recurring (e.g. reliving the experience, illusions, hallucinations, and dissociative flashback episodes, including those on wakening or when intoxicated).
- Intense psychological distress at exposure to internal or external cues that symbolise or resemble an aspect of the traumatic event.
- Physiological reactivity on exposure to internal or external cues that symbolise or resemble an aspect of the traumatic event.
Again, these symptoms are often experienced by individuals following a road traffic accident, and are simply never flagged up.
Persistent avoidance
It is also necessary for a Claimant to demonstrate persistent avoidance of stimuli associated with the trauma and numbing of general responsiveness (not present before the trauma) as indicated by at least three of the following:
- Efforts to avoid thoughts, feelings or conversations associated with the trauma.
- Efforts to avoid activities, places or people that arouse recollections of the trauma.
- Inability to recall an important aspect of the trauma.
- Markedly diminished interest or participation in significant activity.
- Feeling of detachment or estrangement from others.
- Restricted range of affect (e.g. unable to have loving feelings).
- Sense of a foreshortened future (e.g. does not expect to have a career, marriage, children or a normal life span).
Persistent symptoms
Persistent symptoms of increased arousal (not present before the trauma) as indicated by at least two of the following:
- Difficulty falling or staying asleep.
- Irritability or outbursts of anger.
- Difficulty concentrating.
- Hyper vigilance.
- Exaggerated startle response.
Duration
The symptoms above must last for more than one month.
Resulting effect
The disturbance causes clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.
Practice points in assessing post-traumatic stress claims
It may well assist when dealing with individual who may suffer from PTSD to be aware that the most common reported symptoms of PTSD are:
- Hyper vigilance (feels like but is not paranoia)
- Exaggerated startle response
- Irritability
- Sudden angry or violent outbursts
- Flashbacks, nightmares, intrusive recollections, replays, violent visualisations
- Trigger events, which will be personal in each case
- Sleep disturbance
- Exhaustion and chronic fatigue
- Reactive depression
- Guilt
- Feelings of detachment
- Avoidance behaviours
- Nervousness, anxiety
- Phobias about specific daily routines, events or objects
- Irrational or impulsive behaviour
- Loss of interest
- Loss of ambition
- Anhedonia (inability to feel joy and pleasure)
- Poor concentration
- Impaired memory
- Joint pains, muscle pains
- Emotional numbness
- Physical numbness
- Low self-esteem
- An overwhelming sense of injustice and a strong desire to do something about it
Effectively these points represent a check list which a Claimant can look to address and answer by way of their witness evidence. Further, in dealing with medical experts, the criteria above represent “watchwords” which to a trained professional will indicate a case of PTSD.
Somatisation
Somatisation is generally defined as;
“The tendency to experience psychological distress in the form of somatic symptoms and to seek medical help for these symptoms, which may be initiated and/or perpetuated by emotional responses such as anxiety and depression”.
In essence it is where psychiatric issues cause a physical manifestation of the same. This can include;
- Chest pains;
- Tiredness;
- Dizziness;
- Generalised pain
- Feeling sick.
The relationship between the mind and body is complex and not fully understood. When a person somatises, the mental or emotional problem is expressed partly, or mainly, as one or more physical symptoms. Chapter 8 JSC guidelines will assist on the quantification of such damages.
Practically speaking, it is not unheard of for a Claimant who suffers from, for example, Fibromyalgia, to see an accident or set of events re-aggravating or worsening this pre-existing injury. Expert evidence is likely to be needed from the relevant expert on this point but it is not an area of the claim that should be jettisoned simply as it does not appear to flow form the alleged breaches.
Conclusion
Again, this is not intended to be a full catalogue of all injuries a practitioner will encounter, but a broad overview of those most commonly encountered in practise.
The early receipt of well-reasoned psychiatric expert opinion will be essential. Practitioners are well advised to ensure that the instructed expert has access to both the Claimants medical and treatment records (if applicable) as well as proof of evidence to assist in focusing their minds.
When considering the evidence it is also pragmatic to ask on what literature the opinion is based. Once this is done, it is reasonable and proportionate for a practitioner to consider the same, and to form a opinion if the literature has been interpreted properly, and that the report in conjunction with this remains persuasive. Doing this at an early stage can often avoid, or at least flag up likely issues which may emerge in opposing expert evidence.
MORE INFORMATION / PURCHASE THE BOOK ONLINE
Image ©iStockphoto.com/RapidEye
'Unconvincing and unreliable' witnesses vs dishonest ones: relevant factors and lessons to learn for litigation: Brint v Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust [2021] EWHC 290 (QB) - Paul Erdunast, Temple Garden Chambers

08/03/21. There are cases where an unconvincing and unreliable witness is not dishonest. That much is not news; it is obvious. The point of this piece is to give tips to Defendant litigators who want to prove fundamental dishonesty in a case where the Claimant’s evidence has serious inconsistencies. That said, this piece has use for Claimant representatives as well, as it gives an insight into how the judge might think, and how the other side might act, where the client’s evidence is not perfect.
The case was one of alleged clinical negligence, although the exact facts of the case do not matter for these purposes.
The relevant factors for the court
The Court found nine factors on which to base its conclusion that the Claimant was not fundamentally dishonest, even though her evidence was seriously unreliable. The relevant factors out of these are as follows:
1. The allegation of fundamental dishonesty only came the day before trial. There was no reason given why it came so late given that the relevant evidence was there all along;
2. Only one out of the many experts in the case raised dishonesty in presentation, and none of the Claimant’s treating clinicians did this;
3. The judge’s impression of the witness was that she was not motivated by financial gain, and this was...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/
Case Summary: P v C - Steven Barke, Spencers Solicitors

02/03/21. Case Name: P v C
Accident Date: 05/03/2019
Settlement Date: 22/06/2020
TOTAL GROSS SETTLEMENT: £16,000.00
Background
The claimant was involved in a road traffic accident when he was travelling home from work. As he proceeded through a junction, the defendant negligently pulled out of a side road hitting the claimant’s vehicle on the passenger side. The impact caused the claimant’s vehicle to roll three times and land upside down. Emergency services attended the scene and the claimant was taken to hospital. He was discharged later that day.
The claimant initially suffered with headaches, stiff neck, blurred vision, pins and needles in the right hand, moderate bruising to the face and flare up of pre-existing osteoarthritis in the left knee. The claimant also suffered with pain in the groin area which was later diagnosed as a hernia caused by harsh braking before the impact. The claimant underwent surgery on the hernia.
The claimant also suffered with low mood, anxiety and flashbacks. The medical evidence suggested the claimant developed a post-concussion syndrome. Following a course of physiotherapy together with some counselling, the claimant made a full recovery.
Liability
Liability was admitted by the defendant.
Quantum
The matter settled with a global offer. However, the claimant solicitors estimate the breakdown as £14,000.00 for general damages and £2000.00 for special damages.
Solicitors for the Claimant: Steven Barke of Spencers Solicitors Limited
Solicitors for the Defendant: Covea Insurance
Image ©iStockphoto.com/joyt
Practitioner's Update: Kumar v Hellard [2021] EWHC 181 (Ch) - Harry Peto, Temple Garden Chambers

26/02/21. This case concerned an appeal against a bankruptcy order made against the appellant in the County Court. The respondent was an insolvency practitioner in his capacity as the liquidator of Highfield Distribution (UK) Ltd.
The basis for the appeal was that, on material before the District Judge, a real question had been raised as to the appellant’s litigation capacity.
The evidence
There was a letter before the DJ, purporting to come from the appellant though possibly written by his daughter, stating that the appellant was currently suffering from Alzheimer’s disease. The letter indicated there was a future consultant’s appointment. The letter asked the court to adjourn the hearing to give the appellant’s consultant time to advise.
There were also letters from a trainee doctor and from a GP confirming that the patient had Alzheimer’s disease, and a statement of unfitness for work.
The Decision Below
The DJ asked whether there were instructions on what was said in the GP letter or on the communications from medical experts generally as to the appellant’s Alzheimer’s. The respondent’s counsel replied...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/
Update to CPR 36.5 coming in April 2021 pressure on Part 36 offerees - Paul Erdunast, Temple Garden Chambers

24/02/21. On 6 April 2021, the usual yearly amendments will be made to the CPR as per The Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2021. These include a particularly interesting new rule regarding Part 36 offers. The rule allows the offeror to make a provision relating to the accrual of interest on the Part 36 offer if it is accepted after the relevant period expires. It further states that if no such provision is made, the Part 36 offer will be deemed to include all interest up to the date of acceptance.
The provision
The new Rule 36.5(5) will read as follows:
“(5) A Part 36 offer to accept a sum of money may make provision for accrual of interest on such sum after the date specified in paragraph (4). If such an offer does not make any such provision, it shall be treated as inclusive of all interest up to the date of acceptance if it is later accepted.”
The consequences of the new provision
The main consequence is that an offeror can now provide for the accrual of interest beyond the end of the relevant period until the date that the Part 36 offer is accepted. No doubt courts will hear argument in due course as to how reasonable the rates of interest subject to litigation are. I would make the following observations:
1. a party will be able to argue that a relatively high rate of interest is appropriate in circumstances where the objectives of both the offeror and the CPR coincide in encouraging early settlement by the offeree;
2. offerees will not often want to incur the expense of detailed assessment and may therefore be willing to make compromise where the interest level in the relevant clause is relatively high; and
3. the reasonableness of a high interest rate may vary depending on the case; for example, it may be less reasonable to put a high interest rate in a Defendant’s offer which arrives before the Claimant has had the opportunity to finalise their medical evidence in a personal injury claim, than one which is made after the expert evidence is finalised.
If an offeror does not make a provision for the accrual of interest, then nothing changes from the current situation: the offeree can accept the offer, which is treated as inclusive of all interest. Therefore it would it to be advantageous for pretty much every offeror to make provision as to interest on their Part 36 offer, and a relatively high one at that - although always being sensitive to the particular facts of every case.
Image ©iStockphoto.com/DNY59








