PI Brief Update

Disability or Diagnosis? - Dr Mark Burgin

23/04/25. Dr Mark Burgin considers the implications of a recent case where the judge found that the precise diagnosis was less important than the disability.

Finegan v McDonald [2025] NIKB 14 is a Road Traffic Accident case where the psychiatric experts were in disagreement. Both indicated that there were mental health problems that were moderately severe but disagreed with the diagnosis. One expert stated that there was PTSD the other stated that there was an adjustment reaction.

There is no indication that they considered offering a range of opinion and this was not suggested by the judge. It is well recognised that a person with previous traumatic experiences may be triggered by a subsequent traumatic experience. He had significant functional issues which were temporally associated with the accident.

The judge stated that ‘I found the plaintiff to be a very particular, obsessive individual with a tendency to rumination and introspection’. ‘Whilst, obviously, the diagnosis is important in terms of the assessment of damages, more important, in my view, is the impact that condition has had on his everyday functioning and lifestyle, which has been significant.’

This judgement raises an important question, whether the considerable effort made by two senior experts to determine the likely diagnosis was useful to the court. Under CPR1.1 the evidence should be necessary to deal with cases justly and at proportionate cost. A disability report may have been a better approach (or the mandatory range of opinion).

Doctor Mark Burgin, BM BCh (oxon) MRCGP is a Disability Analyst and is on the General Practitioner Specialist Register.

Dr. Burgin can be contacted on This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. and 0845 331 3304 websites drmarkburgin.co.uk and gecko-alligator-babx.squarespace.com

Disability Analysis: A Practical Guide by Mark Burgin | 18 Oct 2024

This is part of a series of articles by Dr. Mark Burgin. The opinions expressed in this article are the author's own, not those of Law Brief Publishing Ltd, and are not necessarily commensurate with general legal or medico-legal expert consensus of opinion and/or literature. Any medical content is not exhaustive but at a level for the non-medical reader to understand.

Image ©iStockphoto.com/Mark-W-R