The introduction of the OIC Portal and the fixed tariff for whiplash injuries gives Claimants and their representatives an incentive to "layer" their claims and fraudulently maximise the damages sought. The case of Hassam v Rabot [2024] has only served to increase this incentive further. This layering model will potentially lead to the claim being allocated to the fast track and serve only to increase costs to the compensator.
There is clear industry-wide data that claims for psychological injury and associated treatment costs, physiotherapy costs and credit hire claims have increased significantly since the introduction of fixed costs.
With an ever-developing, well thought-out strategy, DWF are drawing these practices to the attention of the court. Through the use of similar fact evidence, we are highlighting the increase in these practices, as well as utilising our intel to establish links between various entities involved in claims.
Furthermore, there are clear concerns over the deliberate exaggeration of claims to allow for unnecessary medical treatment to be provided by linked entities to generate further profit.
The market-leading DWF case of Khan v Aviva Insurance UK Ltd [2022] brought the issue of layering to the fore. The case highlighted specific collusion between the Claimant's solicitors, medical agency and other associated entities, designed to increase the financial value of the claim, both in relation to damages and the costs. Read our commentary here.
DWF fraud have robust strategies to identify and disrupt the entities who are enabling the layering, seeking and utilising adverse judicial commentary to defeat claims and obtain fundamental dishonesty findings. Fundamental dishonesty and beyond | DWF Group
On the horizon
- Movement of medical enablers – in particular in relation to psychological diagnosis moving into the large loss, employers and public liability and data breach arena.
- We do not consider that layering cases are likely to decrease in the coming months and we are committed to developing strategies to a) disrupt the practices, b) continue to build similar fact evidence in relation to the entities involved and c) continue to draw the practices to the attention of the court and obtain judicial comment.
- Calling the Claimant to give oral evidence has been effective in undermining their credibility and encouraging the court to reject the alleged additional injuries claimed.
- As more cases are identified and claims rejected arguments for non-party costs orders should be sought.
Authors: Miles Hepworth or Sangeet Sanghera.
Further reading: Implausible/additional injuries – our approach.
