Case

B v. W (Unrep) 09.06.20

09.06.20

Practice Areas

Personal Injury

Cases Citation

(Unrep)

The Claimant, a 60-year-old engineer, recovered £350,000 in a negotiated settlement for a whiplash injury and a head injury that triggered epilepsy two years later.

The Claimant, a 60-year-old engineer, recovered £350,000 in a negotiated settlement for a whiplash injury and a head injury that triggered epilepsy two years later.

speed rear end shunting accident. He developed a whiplash injury and on his case and moderate/severe TBI comprising microscopic diffuse axonal injury.

He reported a cluster of physical, vestibular, cognitive, behavioural and psychological symptoms commonly associated with a concussive head injury.

His GCS was normal, there was no recorded loss of consciousness and repeatedly normal CT and 3T MRI scans of his brain. Retrospective PTA assessment using the Rivermead protocol revealed surprising gaps in his memory of events over the 72 hour period after the accident.

Roughly 3 months after the accident he developed déjà vu episodes that were the precursor to his first grand mal epileptic seizure 25 months post-accident. Two further grand mal seizures followed and he was treated with powerful anti-epileptic medication which exacerbated his cognitive fatigue.

He continued to work full time over the 5 year period after the accident and the claim comprised his future reduced earning capacity, his past additional costs associated with a 1,000 day driving ban and future costs associated with a heightened chance of needed dementia care in later life.

The Defendant did not accept that there was any TBI. It contended that there was no association between a whiplash mechanism and TBI. She contended that diagnosing a TBI purely by reference to a rPTA assessment was unsafe. She advanced a differential diagnosis of Functional Cognitive Disorder, notwithstanding no pre-accident history of psychological vulnerability, and notwithstanding the fact that C had battled on working full time with his symptoms.

The Defendant contended that the epilepsy was probably cryptogenic (i.e.: constitutional and coincidental) and the claim for a heightened risk of dementia care was not countenanced.

The claim was compromised part way between the parties’ respective best cases through a structured negotiation.


Related Barristers


Marcus Grant

Marcus Grant
Year of Call: 1993