15th April 2019
James Arney, instructed by Catherine Lewis of Horwich Farrelly for Admiral Insurance, represented the Defendant, against Paul Rose QC, at an Independent Evaluation. The claim was pleaded at over £6 million concerning moderate to severe Traumatic Brain Injury involving ongoing support worker and case management input. The Claimant suffered significant long-term loss of earnings and the case was complicated by pre-existing issues and the extent to which they may have adversely affected the Claimant on a long-term basis in any event. After an evaluation by Andrew Lewis QC, parties reached settlement at £1,411,000 plus provisional damages on the risk of uncontrolled epilepsy.
The Claimant suffered a traumatic brain injury in a road traffic accident at the age of 19. Liability had been apportioned 90/10 in the Claimant’s favour.
The Claimant had a complex pre-accident history, most notably by reference to her autism, but also as to low mood, self-harming, dyslexia, social communication disorder, disorganisation, impulsiveness, obsessiveness and hallucinations. The combined effect of these issues was sufficient to impact on the Claimant’s pre-accident development, most notably in respect of her education, but also in terms of early employment. The Claimant’s school records revealed consistently poor organisation, lack of commitment, failure to meet deadlines and/or complete assignments and non-attendance.
Parties were at a disagreement on the ongoing need for support worker and case management input, and the extent to which the Claimant would have required these in any event. Similarly, the Claimant’s long-term loss of earnings were disputed on the basis of her pre-accident difficulties.
After a failed JSM, with the parties’ pleaded cases being over £5M apart, both sides agreed to engage in an Independent Evaluation undertaken by Andrew Lewis QC. After evaluation, parties reached settlement at £1,411,000 plus provisional damages on the risk of uncontrolled epilepsy.
Settlement was influenced by the Defendant’s experts’ acceptance that: –
a) The Claimant would have been independent but for the accident notwithstanding pre-existing issues; and
b) The principle that post accident, the Claimant needed long-term commercial third-party input.