Claims: Court Finds Medical Expert Report Was `Almost Worse Than Useless’

The long-winded process of PI claims after road collisions can be diverted by many legal potholes along the way. Sometimes it is the expert opinion regarding mental trauma which proves to be something of a rocky road. Here’s the word from HF for you;

Leading insurer 1^st Central, and HF, leading legal advisors to the commercial and insurance sectors, have defeated a claim where a medical expert’s report was found to be “almost worse than useless”.

Following a minor road traffic collision in a car park, a claim was made by Miss Clark, who was a passenger.

She had claimed compensation for whiplash injuries and psychological symptoms. In support of her claim, she relied upon medical reports from Ms. Anbreen Khan, physiotherapist and Ms. Aisha Ali, counselling psychologist.

The claim was investigated by 1^st Central and HF’s counter fraud teams based on this claim and taking into account a pattern of other cases, which made the supporting medical evidence questionable, particularly:

• Ms Khan’s limitations in providing to the Court clear evidence when the examination was conducted remotely and lasted a mere 20 minutes
• The lack of correlation within her report between the minor nature of the collision versus the symptoms reported.
• How the report failed to consider the lack of medical attention and pre-existing injuries
• While references in a medical report serve to substantiate clinical findings, support arguments with evidence-based research, and acknowledge external sources to avoid plagiarism, those used by Ms Khan were completely out of date.

HF called Ms Khan to give oral evidence at trial. His Honour Judge Gallagher dismissed Miss Clark’s claim and made a series of highly critical findings regarding the reports prepared by Ms Khan and Ms Ali, alongside the conduct of the solicitors in the handling of the claim. 

The judgment resulted in a wholesale rejection of Khan’s evidence with a particular comment made regarding Ms Khan’s lack of competence, independence, methodology, and honesty as an expert witness:

“Miss Khan’s report was I regret to say, almost worse than useless. To the extent, at times, of being positively disingenuous.”

“She refused to answer the question put, but tried, in an evasive way, to answer the questions she wanted to answer.”

Her clinical findings were described as implausible and unreliable:

“I found it literally unbelievable that over a 20-minute consultation over a handheld telephone… she was able to assess a left shoulder movement as being 80 to 89 per cent of normal.”

The Court also found that references appended to her report appeared to have been included for appearance rather than substance:

“At no stage… did she in any way seek to qualify or explain the fact that those reports (references at the end of her report) had not been looked at by her, and, quite frankly, were just added much like an artificial intelligence report might, added for effect….Having agreed… that she had never read them, that, of itself, in my judgment, would destroy any report that she wrote as far as credibility is concerned.”

 JILL BIDEN IS A DOCTOR, WE HAVE ESTABLISED THAT. OTHERS ARE NOT DOCTORS

Ms. Khan further misled the Court by using the title “doctor,” despite not being a medical doctor. Miss Clark’s own witness statement referred to Khan being a doctor which the judge considered “deceptive”.

Graeme Mulvoy, Partner said: “It’s pleasing to see that His Honour Judge Gallagher agreed with our submissions and ultimately several years of strategy and hard work has resulted in a just outcome. A special mention to Elinor Willis who led for HF, alongside Sharlene Butterfield at 1^st Central.

“A copy of the Judgment was also referred to Medco Healthcare professionals Council and the Chartered Institute of Physiotherapists to consider an investigation into Ms Khan’s professional conduct, which we will be monitoring closely in the coming months.”

Paul Priestly, Director of Counter Fraud, 1^st Central said: “Each year we see hundreds, if not thousands, of medical reports in support of claims. It should not be the case that we need to tackle so-called experts as well, to protect our customers. However, when we are presented with such evidence, our team are well equipped, in collaboration with HF, to challenge these claims and identify and root out fraud at any level in a claim.”