James Bell and Laura Vincent Evans recently settled a claim for a client involved in a high-speed road traffic accident in which she suffered fractures of the sacrum and vertebrae as well as the sternum, pelvis and ribs. As a result, she required significant surgery involving various metal inserts.
Kingsley Napley quickly obtained an admission of liability from the Defendant driver and then moved to quantify the claim in order get our client the rehabilitation and treatment she needed. The Defendant’s insurers agreed for the Rehabilitation Code to be invoked (you can read about what this entails here) and as a result our client was able to access rehabilitation services while the claim was in progress. These services included a dietician, physiotherapist, a case manager and a dog walker.
Unfortunately, the support being provided under the Code was withdrawn by the Defendant at the time that they made a significant Part 36 offer of settlement. Nonetheless, Kingsley Napley successfully obtained numerous interim compensation payments throughout the life of the claim, enabling our client to continue with the rehabilitation services that had been assisting her recovery. Expert evidence was obtained from experts in the following disciplines: spinal surgery, general orthopaedics, care and case management and psychiatry. Multiple statements were also taken from friends and former work colleagues to explain the full impact of the injuries on all aspects of the claimant’s life.
Meanwhile, because we did not consider any offer made by the Defendant to be sufficient we decided to issue formal Court proceedings. We continued to fight hard for the best outcome and the case went on to settle for a sum significantly higher than the Defendant’s Part 36 offers.
The compensation package included funds for past and future care and treatments. We also ensured that the damages included some lost earnings. This element of the claim was heavily disputed as our client was unemployed and searching for work at the time of the accident, although she had previously been working in property management. The Defendant also disputed the impact of the accident upon her ability to work.