Car Accident 3 yrs ago - still in pain - £5k WTF ?
Discussion
Hi guys,
My wife was injured in a car accident 3 yrs ago and is still in pain with her shoulder.
Someone hit her car from behind yet she admitted 50:50 to 'speed it up' not knowing at the time that this injury would be a lasting one.
Our solicitor (I didn't want one, the other person's insurers insisted we had one) is now saying that we should accept £5k (of course he is, he just wants his fees).
This seems incredibly low to me, she earnt over £30k a yr has lost strength in her arm / shoulder and can't do many of the things she used to, plus they are saying that any pain she is in after 3 yrs can't be related to the accident and is due to her age - WHAT ?
Has anyone got any experience in medical or legal fields as this all seems ridiculous... can I insist it goes to court ?
I hate the compensation culture but this is a significant injury that's been going on for years and looks like its going to be permanent, which if someone offered me £100k to have, I wouldn't want it.
TBH I'd be happy to have no money and the problem fixed but that doesn't seem to be an option.
Cheers
My wife was injured in a car accident 3 yrs ago and is still in pain with her shoulder.
Someone hit her car from behind yet she admitted 50:50 to 'speed it up' not knowing at the time that this injury would be a lasting one.
Our solicitor (I didn't want one, the other person's insurers insisted we had one) is now saying that we should accept £5k (of course he is, he just wants his fees).
This seems incredibly low to me, she earnt over £30k a yr has lost strength in her arm / shoulder and can't do many of the things she used to, plus they are saying that any pain she is in after 3 yrs can't be related to the accident and is due to her age - WHAT ?
Has anyone got any experience in medical or legal fields as this all seems ridiculous... can I insist it goes to court ?
I hate the compensation culture but this is a significant injury that's been going on for years and looks like its going to be permanent, which if someone offered me £100k to have, I wouldn't want it.
TBH I'd be happy to have no money and the problem fixed but that doesn't seem to be an option.
Cheers
If you go to court then bear in mind you could end up with nothing........but also you could get significantly more compensation.
I guess in this case you would have to PROVE that the accident caused the injury and the result of that injury has stopped her from working her normal job.
I guess the court will look for information supporting your claims from your doctor too.
The more information you have supporting your claim the better.
I guess in this case you would have to PROVE that the accident caused the injury and the result of that injury has stopped her from working her normal job.
I guess the court will look for information supporting your claims from your doctor too.
The more information you have supporting your claim the better.
Be careful mate, I had exactly the same thing happen to me 11 years ago and was bullied into accepting £5k, only because there were no witnesses it also had to go 50/50, meaning the £5k I accepted actually turned out to be £2.5k!!! 11 years later I still have to go to the chirpractor twice a month at £33 a pop for compression fractures in my bottom 3 vertebrae. Despite being seriously out of pocket, the pain is sometimes unbearable. If I were you I`d be pushing it to court.
Best of luck
Dave
Best of luck
Dave
Thanks for the replies, maybe I wasn't clear the injury is from the accident but they say any injury / pain AFTER 3yrs must be down to problems that you would have got anyway.
It seems very strange to me - apparently its more complicated as my wife was pregnant at the time.
I'm happy to go to court as TBH losing £5k we don't have isn't going to affect us in any way.
But its more time / hassle which we seem to have had plenty of already.
It seems very strange to me - apparently its more complicated as my wife was pregnant at the time.
I'm happy to go to court as TBH losing £5k we don't have isn't going to affect us in any way.
But its more time / hassle which we seem to have had plenty of already.
redgriff500 said:
plus they are saying that any pain she is in after 3 yrs can't be related to the accident and is due to her age - WHAT ?
Playing devil's advocate: If it's 50:50 why should she get anything?
Edited by Bill on Friday 23 April 11:03
Bill said:
redgriff500 said:
plus they are saying that any pain she is in after 3 yrs can't be related to the accident and is due to her age - WHAT ?
How old is she?Playing devil's advocate: If it's 50:50 why should she get anything?
More to the point if you're hit from behind how can it be 50:50 ?
But the way 50:50 seems to work is you both pay half so total accident cost is say £1m you both pay £500k regardless of whom gets what.
redgriff500 said:
But the way 50:50 seems to work is you both pay half so total accident cost is say £1m you both pay £500k regardless of whom gets what.
50:50 (I think) means that half the other party's loss is paid by you and half yours is paid by them. If your loss is greater you win - if that makes sense.50:50 means that each side pays 50% of their own loss and 50% of the opponent's.
She will have difficulty getting around the admission she made - that could be a very costly decision. However I wouldn't say it is necessarily insurmountable.
£10k isn't too far away for pain, suffering and loss of amenity for non-debilitating, ongoing pain for three years. Of course this is reduced by 50% because of the agreed liability split.
What you haven't told us is what the medical report says. It will say(and if it doesn't, you need another one):
1. Whether the injury is related to the accident;
2. Whether the injury accelerated a pre-existing and possibly unknown condition;
3. How long the pain is likely to continue for.
Loss of earnings should be in addition to any offer for pain, suffering and loss of amenity. There is a duty to mitigate loss but if your wife is genuinely unable to work as a result then the offer seems low. Without seeing the medical report it's impossible for anyone to comment further however.
If the accident happened three years ago then limitation will be an issue and, if not done already, you will soon need to issue Court proceedings. Your solicitor must be on top of this though - this is the most fundamental issue there is in this kind of litigation.
She will have difficulty getting around the admission she made - that could be a very costly decision. However I wouldn't say it is necessarily insurmountable.
£10k isn't too far away for pain, suffering and loss of amenity for non-debilitating, ongoing pain for three years. Of course this is reduced by 50% because of the agreed liability split.
What you haven't told us is what the medical report says. It will say(and if it doesn't, you need another one):
1. Whether the injury is related to the accident;
2. Whether the injury accelerated a pre-existing and possibly unknown condition;
3. How long the pain is likely to continue for.
Loss of earnings should be in addition to any offer for pain, suffering and loss of amenity. There is a duty to mitigate loss but if your wife is genuinely unable to work as a result then the offer seems low. Without seeing the medical report it's impossible for anyone to comment further however.
If the accident happened three years ago then limitation will be an issue and, if not done already, you will soon need to issue Court proceedings. Your solicitor must be on top of this though - this is the most fundamental issue there is in this kind of litigation.
DavidHM said:
50:50 means that each side pays 50% of their own loss and 50% of the opponent's.
She will have difficulty getting around the admission she made - that could be a very costly decision. However I wouldn't say it is necessarily insurmountable.
£10k isn't too far away for pain, suffering and loss of amenity for non-debilitating, ongoing pain for three years. Of course this is reduced by 50% because of the agreed liability split.
What you haven't told us is what the medical report says. It will say(and if it doesn't, you need another one):
1. Whether the injury is related to the accident;
2. Whether the injury accelerated a pre-existing and possibly unknown condition;
3. How long the pain is likely to continue for.
Loss of earnings should be in addition to any offer for pain, suffering and loss of amenity. There is a duty to mitigate loss but if your wife is genuinely unable to work as a result then the offer seems low. Without seeing the medical report it's impossible for anyone to comment further however.
If the accident happened three years ago then limitation will be an issue and, if not done already, you will soon need to issue Court proceedings. Your solicitor must be on top of this though - this is the most fundamental issue there is in this kind of litigation.
Great post.She will have difficulty getting around the admission she made - that could be a very costly decision. However I wouldn't say it is necessarily insurmountable.
£10k isn't too far away for pain, suffering and loss of amenity for non-debilitating, ongoing pain for three years. Of course this is reduced by 50% because of the agreed liability split.
What you haven't told us is what the medical report says. It will say(and if it doesn't, you need another one):
1. Whether the injury is related to the accident;
2. Whether the injury accelerated a pre-existing and possibly unknown condition;
3. How long the pain is likely to continue for.
Loss of earnings should be in addition to any offer for pain, suffering and loss of amenity. There is a duty to mitigate loss but if your wife is genuinely unable to work as a result then the offer seems low. Without seeing the medical report it's impossible for anyone to comment further however.
If the accident happened three years ago then limitation will be an issue and, if not done already, you will soon need to issue Court proceedings. Your solicitor must be on top of this though - this is the most fundamental issue there is in this kind of litigation.
I think this is going to turn on the medical report, and OP's other half as a witness.
If the medical report says she was able to work, you've got problems and if you disagree your lawyers will potentially need to seek another medical opinion.
Wife's admission won't sink your ship, but if she's recanting it, she'd better be good as a witness.
DavidHM's advice concurs with my experience. All I'd add is that if you do decide to go to court and you get an award similar to that which has already been offered, you may be liable for everyone's costs.
Sounds like it's worth investing in a proper medical assessment but the main part of your claim will be loss of earnings and medical needs, now and future.
Good luck with it.
Sounds like it's worth investing in a proper medical assessment but the main part of your claim will be loss of earnings and medical needs, now and future.
Good luck with it.
You cannot begin to attempt an accurate valuation of injury compensation without a written report from the appropriate medical expert, who should have had access to all medical records, xrays, scans, etc.
Once the claim has been settled it will not be possible to go back to the insurers and seek a further payment of compensation if the injuries turn out to be more serious than is presently thought.
Has your solicitor issued court proceedings? There is a 3 year time limit in personal injury cases, and your wifes claim will be barred by statute if she has not settled her claim within 3 years from the date of the accident, or alternatively issued court proceedings. Statute barred = no compensation at all!
Once the claim has been settled it will not be possible to go back to the insurers and seek a further payment of compensation if the injuries turn out to be more serious than is presently thought.
Has your solicitor issued court proceedings? There is a 3 year time limit in personal injury cases, and your wifes claim will be barred by statute if she has not settled her claim within 3 years from the date of the accident, or alternatively issued court proceedings. Statute barred = no compensation at all!
Several years ago my wife had an accident in her car, on the insurance claim form she stated she hit the dashboard of the car with her knee. The solicitor acting for our insurers insisted that a specialist orthopaedic surgeon examined her knee. The specialist insisted there was no lasting damage, just bruising, but the solicitor insisted that it was worth damages of £1000, so sign this consent form, and we will come back with a cheque for £1000. After signing the form, the solicitor wrote back and said, we do not think £1000 is fair compensation, so sign this consent form and we will come back to you with a cheque for £2000. After we signed that form, the solicitor then wrote back and said, we do not think £2000 is enough, so sign this consent form and we will come back to you with a cheque for £3000.
We then had a letter from the solicitors to say that the other side’s insurers wanted the wife’s knee examined by their orthopaedic surgeon. After that examination, nothing being found wrong, our solicitor wanted us to sign another consent form for £4000 compensation, which we did, and we drew the line at that point, because this firm of solicitors would still to this today been fighting for more compensation, if we had not stood our ground.
We then had a letter from the solicitors to say that the other side’s insurers wanted the wife’s knee examined by their orthopaedic surgeon. After that examination, nothing being found wrong, our solicitor wanted us to sign another consent form for £4000 compensation, which we did, and we drew the line at that point, because this firm of solicitors would still to this today been fighting for more compensation, if we had not stood our ground.
DavidHM said:
£10k isn't too far away for pain, suffering and loss of amenity for non-debilitating, ongoing pain for three years. Of course this is reduced by 50% because of the agreed liability split.
What you haven't told us is what the medical report says. It will say(and if it doesn't, you need another one):
1. Whether the injury is related to the accident;
2. Whether the injury accelerated a pre-existing and possibly unknown condition;
3. How long the pain is likely to continue for.
Loss of earnings should be in addition to any offer for pain, suffering and loss of amenity. There is a duty to mitigate loss but if your wife is genuinely unable to work as a result then the offer seems low. Without seeing the medical report it's impossible for anyone to comment further however.
Thanks - great post.What you haven't told us is what the medical report says. It will say(and if it doesn't, you need another one):
1. Whether the injury is related to the accident;
2. Whether the injury accelerated a pre-existing and possibly unknown condition;
3. How long the pain is likely to continue for.
Loss of earnings should be in addition to any offer for pain, suffering and loss of amenity. There is a duty to mitigate loss but if your wife is genuinely unable to work as a result then the offer seems low. Without seeing the medical report it's impossible for anyone to comment further however.
£10k seems bugger all to me I'd happily pay £1k to avoid a bad cold but if that's the 'std amount' I guess there is little I can do.
The reports says that her pain is due to the accident and was made worse due to her being pregnant and that the X rays show degeneration in her neck (as would everyones over 30) and hence any pain AFTER 3 yrs is not attributable to the accident - which I find bizarre as there was no problem pre accident.
She is capable of working but its her right arm and she is in significant discomfort to the point of tears after a day at work (on a mouse / keyboard).
I think the solicitor needs a kick up the backside as he hasn't mentioned a 3yr time out and that is getting very close.
Thanks again
TheCarpetCleaner said:
How is £5k in cash going to help anything? Would cash make her arm feel better?
Surely it is more worthwhile pushing for treatment for the condition caused by the accident?
You tell me how to do that then.Surely it is more worthwhile pushing for treatment for the condition caused by the accident?
The 'Specialist' says that the pain she's in now is attributable to the accident but the same pain in a few months is then due to 'age degeneration'
The 'cure' is total rest for up to 3 yrs apparently - did I mention we have 4 kids (2 under 3yrs old) so unless we put her in a coma that isn't going to happen.
What the specialist is probably saying (without saying the report I can't guarantee this) is that the first three years' symptoms are attributable to the accident; the remainder is age related.
Therefore without the accident your wife would now be experiencing the less acute version of symptoms as they were three years ago and the condition would have ramped up to that level anyway.
I admit the report sounds like hedging but this happens very often - it assists fraudulent claimants and punishes genuine ones.
What does the report say about "disadvantage in the labour market?"
Therefore without the accident your wife would now be experiencing the less acute version of symptoms as they were three years ago and the condition would have ramped up to that level anyway.
I admit the report sounds like hedging but this happens very often - it assists fraudulent claimants and punishes genuine ones.
What does the report say about "disadvantage in the labour market?"
op happy to discuss my experiences that ended up in a 6 figure settlement from an initial offer of 12k. Now your wifes injuries are in the sunday league in comparrison but if you want to discuss what happend, whats happening from someone thats been on the receiving end then happy to take to email. No advice is legally binding, offered in faith based on experience etc
DavidHM said:
What the specialist is probably saying (without saying the report I can't guarantee this) is that the first three years' symptoms are attributable to the accident; the remainder is age related.
Therefore without the accident your wife would now be experiencing the less acute version of symptoms as they were three years ago and the condition would have ramped up to that level anyway.
I admit the report sounds like hedging but this happens very often - it assists fraudulent claimants and punishes genuine ones.
What does the report say about "disadvantage in the labour market?"
Yes that is what he's saying but it seems like complete BS to me, indeed trying to minimise use of her shoulder seems to have caused new pain in her forearm - specialist says they aren't linked (well he hasn't replied to us when we have asked him if it is) but she was a normal healthy woman now she can't do many simple tasks - well she can but is in pain which gets worse later in the day.Therefore without the accident your wife would now be experiencing the less acute version of symptoms as they were three years ago and the condition would have ramped up to that level anyway.
I admit the report sounds like hedging but this happens very often - it assists fraudulent claimants and punishes genuine ones.
What does the report say about "disadvantage in the labour market?"
The report doesn't mention the injury related to her ability to work at all.
They asked how much work she missed but it was soon Xmas then she was on maternity leave and again she thought it would get better so didn't make a fuss.
Edited by redgriff500 on Friday 23 April 23:31
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff