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.
21/03/2022
£4.4m settlement for a businessman who developed functional neurological disorder and chronic pain following a running down accident.
Marcus represented a 38-year-old businessman run over at low speed by a reversing articulated lorry in what was an objectively horrifying accident.
He sustained a mild brachial plexus injury to his dominant arm, audiovestibular injury to his left saccule and utricle triggering a migraine variant balance disorder and phonophobia, PTSD, a major depressive episode of moderate to severe intensity, chronic widespread primary pain and a probable mild / possible symptomatic brain injury overtaken by a functional neurological disorder [“FND”].
The symptoms proved resistant to treatment, including 22 weeks as an inpatient at a facility specialising in psychiatric injury. At the 6th anniversary he presented with debilitating symptoms and was in receipt of a state funded 24/7 care regime.
He failed all PVTs and SVTs administered to him by the parties’ neuropsychological experts (one test out of seven was below chance level) and was taking a combination of powerful anti-psychotics and neuropathic pain agents with opiate properties.
C contended that PVT / SVT failure was expected as part of the FND presentation.
Whilst the defendant harboured some concerns about his credibility, the principal issues between the parties at the 6th anniversary of the accident concerned the adequacy of historic treatment / rehabilitation and his prognosis.
D adopted a position that historic treatment lacked coordination, had been too focussed on brain injury and fostered a misplaced sense of dependency by C on others.
C rejected these propositions and observed that D had failed to disclose any lay witness or surveillance evidence to contradict the factual precision of C’s stated case.
The case settled through negotiation at a level where both parties respected the merits of the other’s case.
