Woman wins compensation despite exaggerated claim
It has been revealed that a female driver will receive just over £50,000 in damages after her £682,000 personal injury claim was thought to be too excessive.
A High Court judge ruled that the woman’s claim for damages over injuries in a car collision was exaggerated, thus dropping her total amount to the new figure.
Mr Justice Nicolas Kearns, awarded the victim aged 51, a HSE home support organiser, a total of over £80,000 compensation in damages.
As part of her claim she stated that she could not return to work as a result of the injuries she suffered during the crash. Thus, she had claimed just over £200,000 for loss of earnings into the future. Mr Justice Kearns remarked that such a sum was more appropriate to a paraplegic case.
The driver, of River Row, Moville, Co Donegal, had brought her action against a male motorist from Magherbeg, Fanad, Co Donegal, over the crash that happened on April 28th, 2005.
The case was brought before the court for assessment of damages only and the defendant had argued against the amount of damages sought.
Michael Carson, for the claimant, said she was driving her car at Magherdrummond, Milford, on April 28th, 2005, on the main Ramelton to Milford road when the man’s car crossed on to the wrong side of the road and into her path.
As a result of the collision, her car was left as a write-off. She also suffered severe personal injuries. The lawyer said that she was approved by her doctor to go on holiday for health reasons, but she collapsed on the plane on the way home. She suffered from headaches and attended 40 physiotherapy sessions.
In his judgment, Mr Justice Kearns said this was “a worrying case” as the victim appeared to believe she had suffered a much more serious injury than he believed she had.
He believed she suffered a soft tissue injury which could have cleared up in a relatively short period of time and allowed her to return to work within some 18 months.
He also believed a provision whereby five-sixths of a HSE employee’s wages are paid while they are out of work with a personal injury played a significant role in ensuring the woman was not encouraged to make the required rehabilitative effort, which he believed could have helped to speed up her recovery period.
As a result, the judge concluded that the claimant exaggerated the severity of her bodily injuries. He noted that a photo dated May 16th, 2006, showed her putting up washing on a clothesline and raising her arm 90 degrees without any apparent restriction.
Referring to the evidence of medical experts, the judge said an investigation failed to find any significant spinal cord compression.
Charlotte Pegman, Managing Partner of an injury lawyer firm stated that this case was isolated and most claimants are genuine:
“Not only are most compensation awards unspectacular, but most people actually have very modest expectations – typically in-line with average awards or even expecting substantially less. Our research indicates to us that most people only want fair and reasonable compensation when they are injured at work.”
Updated on 11/26/2009