Temple Garden Chambers is a leading common law set based in London and The Hague.
With excellence from top to bottom Chambers provides a first class service in a number of different fields.
Temple Garden Chambers is a leading common law set based in London and The Hague.
With excellence from top to bottom Chambers provides a first class service in a number of different fields.
27/04/2022
£1m settlement for a 30-year-old steel worker supervisor who developed chronic neuropathic pain in his right foot following a workplace accident.
Marcus Grant represented this claimant who sustained fractures to his right second metatarsal and cuboid bones following a crush injury in the workplace. The fractures were treated conservatively. He developed a burning pain across the dorsum and ball of the foot.
That pain became entrenched and chronic long after the fractures united. In the acute and subacute post-accident periods, he developed psychological symptoms satisfying the diagnostic threshold of an adjustment disorder, which remitted to sub-clinical levels by the second anniversary of the accident.
He was left with enduring pain of variable intensity that limited his ability to place weight through the ball of the foot for prolonged periods. On his case, the prognosis for further significant recovery past the fifth anniversary of the accident was poor. It left him unsuited to moderately heavy physically demanding manual work in which he thrived before the accident.
The bulk of his claim comprised his past and future reduced earning capacity. The defendant contended that he was less disabled in the labour market than he presented, relying on covert surveillance evidence in support of that contention; further, it suggested that his future prognosis was more optimistic than he claimed and disputed his ‘but for’ career potential by serving statements from colleagues making unkind observations about his competence in the workplace before the accident.
The claimant responded by adopting the covert surveillance, which he contended corroborated his case. He submitted rebuttal witness evidence to contradict the evidence from the defendant’s witnesses that he was an unsatisfactory employee before the accident. The case settled for the above sum following a joint settlement meeting six months before trial.
