E v. S (Unrep) 08.06.20
The Claimant, a 57-year-old dry liner, recovered £750,000 in a negotiated settlement of a claim for brain injury and orthopaedic injuries sustained in a work place accident. He was left with an enduring cluster of physical, vestibular, cognitive, behavioural and psychological symptoms.
His case was presented on the basis that the most debilitating feature of his enduring symptoms was a dysexecutive syndrome that made him unable to think laterally or cope well with stress or change, necessitating a degree of supervision and light touch prompting.
It was asserted that he would not be able to return to any remunerative employment, and that the level of dependence on his wife was unsustainable going forward and needed to be replaced by a case manager and a light touch support worker regime. Further, it was contended that he was at a heightened risk of dementing which would necessitate a more expensive care regime if the risk eventuated.
The Defendant accepted the technical severity of the brain injury but felt that his recovery was such that he ought to be capable of some remunerative employment following a short burst of case management and rehabilitation, but that there was no long term need for external care and that any claim for a heightened chance of dementia-induced future care was too remote and/or speculative.
A further issue in the case was whether it was acceptable for the Claimant to instruct a forensic account to reconstruct his pre-accident earning capacity from bank statements in the absence of satisfactory accounting records.
The claim was compromised part way between the parties’ respective best cases through a structured negotiation.