Legal question for injury claims.

Three and a half years after my accident a court day was arranged. That was yesterday for next Monday. My barrister said she thought there was no case and the other side offered 12.5k and gave their reasons. I answered all their points and explained how they were all wrong. My barrister said, there's not much hope. Then the other side came back and cancelled the 'Part 8' court process and moved it to a 'part 7' court process. saying the case was too complicated due to the nature of brain injury. Anyone got any ideas what a part8 or part7 court process is, what does it mean other than the case is too complicated?

[Marnie22]

Can you ask your barrister to explain? They should do that for you I would hope. I wish you the best - my medical negligence case went for three years but then stopped and I got nothing, despite the hospital admitting several breaches of duty of care. Hope you get a better outcome.

🙂🌸

[sospan]

As I understand it , a Part 8, is used to ask and get a ruling on a question of Law or ask for a ruling of things like Wills after someone has passed away.

In a Personal Injury case, it could be to ask a judge to consider the evidence and answer a question of law. e.g. if the defendant was liable or within the law

[Hidden in reply to sospan]

Ah that makes a bit of sense. Have had a little think about it and think that the barrister was provided with scant information from the solicitor (I had taken them to the ombudsman previously and they don't communicate or answer questions since that time, I won the argument with the ombudsman). I don't think the solicitor has put together the case properly for the barrister hence the barrister saying there's no case, literally and metaphorically. The issue is the expert medical evidence from the neurologist (the 'hatchet man' of the case) he basically said it's all psychological and made opinions outside his area on a number of things such as nerve damage.I had not been seen by the NHS by that time so there was nothing in my medical records. When I was seen by the NHS they painted a whole different story concluding that my condition was PCS with test results from a neuropsychologist. Then I was treated for my nerve damage at Gobowen and they painted a different picture that the expert neurologist had said with the MRi's and conduction studies to prove it. Then a year ago I was sent to an expert psychologist for his assessment for the court and he separated out the psychological effects from the accident, said the rest of the symptoms were neuropsychological and that a past episode of depression had no effects on anything from the accident.

I asked for an addendum report from the expert neurologist to take into account all the new medical information. My solicitor said no they won't ask, that started the ombudsman case that I won, an addendum report was obtained and it said the new evidence changed nothing except that instead of the symptoms being psychological they were now psychiatric.

My explanation to the barrister was the addendum report needs to be challenged, that the new evidence had not been taken into consideration even though they had test results and not merely opinion and that the expert psychologist report contradicts the expert neurologist addendum and initial report.

Here's something that may be of interest to people, the decisions of any DWP medical assessment are also considered evidence in these cases. I suppose two different assessments, PIP and capacity for work, which in my case were awarded, coming from a government body would carry a bit of weight. (the thing is we all know the DWP/ Capita system is a heartless bad joke for most people. But just keep fighting till the bitter end is my advice).

It seems most of this information had not previously been put together by the solicitor for the barrister to act on. She seemed a little confused. She also asked me to state what had happened during the time since the accident, warts and all, eg getting into debt, getting the CAB to take control of formal issues and providing a debt relief plan because at the time I was incapable, the challenges with being on the verge of homelessness for almost a year, selling every I had to survive, dealing with the DWP and the problems with the lack of medical services in the NHS authority because they are in crisis management and basically how it all made me a little mad and derailed on top of the PCS. The solicitor had been informed of all this previously but had not informed the barrister.

The lesson from this seems to be don't trust your solicitor, even if they come across that they are acting in your best interests. You are only a pay cheque for them, the least work for maximum pay ratio.

Another thing to consider is that if these legal firms think a case has legs they will let it run, they get paid every stage along the way. True or not it sounds plausable and they let you make your own case. It's in your interests and they cash in on it, sounds cynical, hell yes it's made me an expert in cynicism and scepticism along the way. Trust no one, if it feels off, then it's off.

[Sapper1965]

Hi there, so sorry to hear of your outcome and your legal team’s decision to abandon the case. My thoughts are how did it get to this stage? They must have given you assurances previously that there was a case etc? Would you now consider appointing a new firm to look in to your case and get their opinion as to the validity of the claim ,and possible new litigation procedures..

[Hidden in reply to Sapper1965]

It's not abandoned it's gone to a higher level.

[Plenty]

Did you say the other side offered £12500?

Who is paying for your legal costs? Sure a solicitor, barrister and medical legal reports are going to cost a lot more than what has been offered.

[halinbath in reply to Plenty]

Solicitors will cap their fees at 25% of claim, so would take a quarter out of the £12,500.

[Plenty in reply to halinbath]

Ok. But medical legal reports from different specialists must have a set cost eg neuropsychologist, ear nose and throat, maxillofacial etc..... etc...... QC, rehabilitation management.

[Hidden]

I had legal expenses cover with my car insurance so there's no fee to be removed from whatever will be awarded.The barrister has been back in touch to get all the personal losses incurred. The original expert neurology report is going to be contested and a neuropsychology report will be requested from the court also. I think the neurology expert has broken the court rules by not declaring his opinions outside his expertise area. Which is basically everything in the report, naughty naughty boy, he was a nasty piece of work.