The importance of choosing the right medical specialist to support your claim
The case of Rodger v Johnson  QSC 117 is one worth highlighting to show that choosing the right medical specialist can really help support your claim. At The Personal Injury Lawyers, this is something we know well, and for over three decades we've been ensuring clients get the best medicals from the best specialists.
The Plaintiff in this case was awarded $400,566 for her claim. In assessing the award, His Honour Jackson J considered the medical evidence before him and his findings elucidate the importance of the expert evidence that is obtained to support a Plaintiff's case.
In this case, the evidence of Dr Journeaux was preferred to that of Dr Pentis as Dr Pentis’ reports did not comply with the Civil Liability Regulation 2003 and the neurogical evidence of Drs Campbell and Todman were preferred over the evidence of Drs Reid and Cameron. Also, His Honour was “unpersuaded” on aspects of Stephen Hoey’s evidence in relation to future economic loss and future care because it was out of date. The award however was still significant at $400,566.00.
The plaintiff was almost 27 years old when her motor scooter collided with the insured‟s vehicle on 4 June 2009. She claimed to have suffered a fractured left wrist, a cervical spine injury, a neurological injury, post-traumatic headaches and adjustment disorder with anxiety and depressed mood. At the date of the accident, the plaintiff was employed full time as a senior conveyancer. She did not work for about 9 months post-accident and on her return to work, reduced her hours before eventually resigning.
The plaintiff then obtained employment in events management working approximately 15 hours per week. The plaintiff claimed a weekly amount for future economic loss for 37 years and an additional $100,000 “for the impairment to her general earning capacity”. The defendant submitted that the plaintiff would be capable of returning to work over two years and that an additional $70,000 should be allowed for the possibility that she may not return to her pre-accident earning capacity.
In the quantum only trial, Jackson J awarded damages in the sum of $400,566.37 as follows:
- General damages $15,200.00
- Past economic loss $87,451.50
- Interest on past economic loss $4,920.87
- Future economic loss $203,294.00
- Past superannuation $7,870.63
- Future superannuation $22,972.00
- Past care $0
- Future care $5,000.00
- Fox v Wood $2,940.00
- Future treatment $32,385.45
- Special damages $17,858.23
- Interest on special damages $673.69
- Total $400,566.37
His Honour accepted that the plaintiff suffered a soft tissue injury to her neck and that her migraine headaches were a symptom caused by the accident. Jackson J noted that it was obvious that the plaintiff‟s ability to function would be affected by her headaches and neck pain. His Honour did, however, state that he was left with a suspicion that the plaintiff‟s inability to recall some matters might have been intended to illustrate her “very poor” memory.
Jackson J proceeded on the basis the plaintiff suffered some difficulties with concentration and memory but the extent to which they would impact on her ability to function in employment was speculative. His Honour found that the plaintiff had an ongoing loss of future earning capacity which would decrease into the future by an uncertain and unclear amount.
His Honour found the moderate cervical spine injury to be the dominant injury with a 25% uplift for the multiple injuries to ISV 13. His Honour stated that Dr Pentis‟ reports did not comply with s 11 of Schedule 3 of the Civil Liability Regulation2003 and over-assessed the extent of the plaintiff‟s ongoing impairment.
As a result, His Honour applied s 12 of Schedule 3 of the Civil Liability Regulation 2003 and gave greater weight to the assessment of Dr Journeaux. Jackson J preferred the evidence of Drs Todman and Campbell to that of Drs Reid and Cameron as their opinions were inconsistent with the finding that the plaintiff‟s headaches were caused by neck pain.
Interest on past economic loss
The plaintiff‟s written submissions took into account Centrelink payments when calculating interest on past economic loss, although the defendant‟s submissions did not. His Honour did not deduct the Centrelink payments from past economic loss when calculating interest on the basis that the defendant had not.
Future economic loss
His Honour awarded $203,294 or $350 per week for 37 years to age 67 discounted by 35%. The assessment was based on full-time earnings as a conveyancer of $750 per week less the average post-accident earnings of just over $400 per week.
Jackson J assessed damages for past care at nil as he did not consider that the s 59(1)(c) threshold was met. His Honour considered that the mother‟s evidence was exaggerated and suggested that the plaintiff‟s clothes were washed separately. Jackson J also found that the care was not “necessary”. In relation to future care, His Honour did not accept Stephen Hoey‟s opinion as it was not accurate or up to date when prepared and at the time of trial 18 months had passed without further review.
His Honour also noted that there was little or no objective evidence which supported the plaintiff‟s claim. Jackson J accepted the defendant‟s submission that a global amount of $5,000 should be allowed to recognise that the plaintiff has some ongoing impairment as regards heavy domestic tasks.
Future medication and treatment
His Honour stated that the “evidence was extremely unsatisfactory” as there was no evidence that all treatment and medication would be required to the end of the plaintiff‟s life expectancy. In particular, osteopathic treatment was not supported by any medical evidence which Jackson J considered to be a “serious omission” given the potential to overlap with other treatments.
The parties agreed on the costs orders. The defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiff‟s costs on a standard basis on the District Court scale up to and including 16 August 2012 with the plaintiff to pay the defendant‟s costs from 17 August 2012 on the Supreme Court scale.
Get our accredited Lawyers to assess your claim for free. Contact us now
If you have been injured as a result of any vehicle such as car, bike or boat accident, or whilst at work, on holiday, or in many other situations you believe was caused by someone else's wrongful act or negligence, you may be entitled to compensation. Even if you think your actions may have contributed to your injury, you may still have a claim well-worth pursuing. Chat, call, email, or let us assess your claim, just press the button below. There is no cost, and no obligation.