Jewels Chamberlain's team is known as the IVU Team (Injury validation Unit) and is a specialist causation team. This specialist team has saved millions for clients over many years with specific cradle-to-grave strategies, working with insurers predominantly pre-litigation to identify farmed claims, applying robust strategies.
Fast forward to the Whiplash Reforms. DWF wanted to maintain the success of the pre-litigation abandonments for insurers. We identified years ago that one of the results of the reforms would be layering claims with additional injuries, which is non-tariff and this is not limited to farmed claims.
Examples of industry first successes in Jewels' team include:-
- An implausible wrist injury struck out at St Helen's Children's claims for head and seatbelt injuries being struck out
- Claimants being ordered to attend OIC hearings
- Chest injuries being struck out as implausible
- Tariff award being reduced due pre-existing injuries
- Tariff being struck out for non-attendance by Claimant
- Claimant's costs being reduced due to additional injury being dismissed
- Claimant's additional injury claims being struck out for failing to attend court
- Expert evidence being struck out
- Costs recovery in LVI cases
- Exceptional uplift being struck out
- Court ordering P35 directions in OIC
A few examples of recent success in her team and the courts interpretations:-
Case 1 – June 2024
This case involved a hearing at St Helens County Court in regards to an application DWF filed to strike out the Claimant's claim as the Claimant's Medical examination took place before the Claimant's SCNF was submitted. We argued that this deprived the insurer client of the opportunity to raise causation concerns and have these addressed by the medical examiner.
The Judge agreed with our application and struck out the Claimant's claim, also ordering them to pay our costs. The Claimant Solicitor had to show cause as to why they should not pay those costs personally, rather than the Claimant. Their submissions failed on this point as they focused on the strike out itself, not the 'show cause' element. They therefore had to pay £3700 of wasted costs personally.
Case 2 – June 2024
The Claimant was a front seat passenger. The impact was on the driver's side of the vehicle, but despite this, the expert states that the Claimant was thrown forwards and backwards.
The tariff was agreed at £520 – which included the minor psychological uplift.
The Claimant sought additional physical injuries, which were a bruise to stomach, injury to both knees, the right hip, strains to both legs, cuts to the left knee, head, chest injury, strain to pelvis and travel anxiety, all diagnosed by the GP medico-legal expert. He then refers to a Clinical Psychologist who diagnoses situational anxiety disorder.
The Claimant sought additional injury value for the psychological element and we defended the case which went before DJ Ming in Birkenhead. He would not transfer to the Claimant's local court so damages were assessed on the day. The Claimant Solicitor tried to withdraw their offer at the court door. Court found that as C accepted the tariff at £520, that was a binding agreement.
Frustratingly though, even though tariff was found to be agreed with the minor psychological uplift, the Judge still allowed the psychological report dibs at £750 (reduced from £1170) as the GP referred to the Psychologist.
Case 3 – February 2024
The case involves the interaction between the tariff and pre-existing injuries, which is an important point to take in similar cases. The Claimant had MS prior to the accident and the medical expert came to the view that the accident aggravated pre-existing symptoms by 60%.
The tariff on a 100% basis gave a figure of £4345. The insurer client made an offer reduced in line with the 40% reduction which the Claimant did not accept. The case was then issued and transferred to Burnley County Court at our request.
The hearing was held before DJ Bury. The Judge held it was correct to reduce the tariff by 40% and awarded zero costs to the Claimant.
Case 4 – July 2024
This matter was decided in Birmingham County Court. The claim was initially submitted via the OIC portal and an admission was sent. Upon receipt of medical evidence, the insurers made no offers and raised causation concerns in relation to the injuries as alleged. The Claimant then withdrew the claim from the OIC portal and issued Part 7 proceedings. The Claimant attended the final hearing.
The Judge found that the tariff injury had been proven however found the non-tariff injury unproven and dismissed this element of the claim. Counsel successfully argued a reduction in the tariff injury given that the physiotherapy records indicated a complete recovery within 3 months. Counsel also successfully argued a reduction in physiotherapy costs given that the treatment notes were missing for one of the alleged sessions.
Case 5 - September 2024
This matter was subject to Part 7 proceedings in St Helens County Court before District Judge Simister. The Claimant relied on medical evidence from physiotherapist, rather than a GP, allowed under the rules but often we find with questionable content.
The examination of the Claimant took place remotely. The physiotherapist supported the Claimant for injuries to his neck, shoulders, lower back, right wrist and fear of travel. She did not however, deal with mechanics for the wrist injury.
Medical records revealed that whilst the Claimant has attended his GP, the initial attendance was on the date of SCNF submission which was over a month post-accident and the subsequent attendance is a week later and post SCNF submission. There was no mention of any injury to the wrist. Employment records did not evidence any sick leave, despite the Claimant maintaining that he was unable to work for 2 days post-accident.
The judge described the Claimant's evidence about what caused the wrist injury as somewhat vague. She noted he had not said that his right wrist was jolted, and could not see how the injury was caused by the index accident, particularly when his left wrist was not injured, despite his evidence that he had been holding the wheel with his left hand on impact.
She said that, while the back and neck injuries could potentially have been caused by the index accident, the Claimant had not given evidence that his seatbelt had tightened, and she could not see the mechanism of injury. The judge made extensive reference to the part 35 replies, in particular what was said about the onset of symptoms (which was inconsistent with the Claimant's oral evidence about their onset), the alleged performance of the Waddell test despite the remote examination, and medical expert's evidence that the Claimant could not recall the pattern of recoil. She noted the Claimant’s failure to mention his history of on/off lower back pain to the physiotherapist.
The judge concluded that, whilst the Claimant came across as truthful in what he was trying to say, given the inconsistencies in his evidence she could not find that he had suffered injury due to the index accident and dismissed the claim entirely, with an overall saving including costs of around £19,000.
Case 6 – September 2024
This claim was presented for tariff injuries to the neck, mid back and right shoulder with a prognosis of 10 months and fear of travel for 6 months... The non-tariff injuries claimed were to the right arm with a prognosis of 10 months. The medical expert did not give details of any mechanism for the right arm injury and on this basis we said that the additional injury was implausible. The tariff sum was agreed at £1390.00 and the Claimant claimed non-tariff at £2500.00, for which no offers were made.
They also claimed for treatment costs of £340.00 and our insurer client offered £200.00.
The matter was transferred to Clerkenwell and Shoreditch County Court and was listed for a small claims hearing in front of DJ Sheen. DWF advised both the Court and the Claimant that we expected the Claimant to attend. He was not in attendance and the District Judge made it clear that she did not feel that the order required the Claimant to attend in person to be cross examined so the hearing went ahead.
The Claimant's SCNF did not include an arm injury and the Claimant has not filed any witness evidence to support her claim for an arm injury. In addition the medical examination was remote and did not support any examination of the arm and the treatment records did not report any treatment for the arm. The District Judge did, after detailed submissions by Defendant Counsel, accept that the Claimant could not discharge the burden of proof in respect of the alleged arm injury and thus she made no award for that head of loss. She also reduced the award for physiotherapy fees by £70.
Please contact Jewels Chamberlain and her IVU Team should you wish any further guidance.
