Medical legal expert witness report advice needed
Discussion
Hi Guys,
Need some advice if possible.
As part of a medical legal issue, we have via the solicitor engaged a medical expert from a company that specialises in providing experts, let’s call them xx.
Some background - my sister and brother-in-law are doctor / surgeon, so although they cannot be experts for this issue, they are both very clued up and experienced (B-in-L is in fact an expert witness, so we know the ins-and -outs of how this should work).
We paid approx £6000 for the report, and then a further £800 odd to answer a number of specific questions we put forward. This was unreasonable, the questions should have been in the original report without any prompting, if the report had been properly written in the first place. Nevertheless, we paid the sum as we are too far in. What then happened is the expert answered a few of the questions, but not the ones we submitted (25 in total). To answer the 25 should have taken no more than a couple of hours, probably less.
Aside of this, the report has multiple errors and a number of assumptions that are totally wrong and would, if left, lead to the wrong conclusion. It is normal that a report is adjusted before the final version - this should all be as part of the original fee.
We then attended a video meeting with the solicitor, a barrister and the expert - this went reasonably well and led to a few points that needed adding to the final version of the report, just 2 or 3 from memory.
Now the problem …
The solicitor asked xx to instruct the expert to amend the report, the expert has agreed but company xx is requesting a further £600 odd to ‘consider amending the report’.
Out of principle, I am now against this, we shouldn’t have had to pay extra for questions that weren’t answered, the original fee (according to B-in-L was inflated to start with). We are effectively being asked to pay the expert/ company xx to correct the mistakes they made.
We have paid for a service, a very significant sum, but have not received that service. My original thought was just to take company xx to small claims but because they were engaged via the solicitor I don’t think I can do that. And for obvious reasons, I don’t really fancy taking the solicitor on (partly because we actually have 2 medical legal issues, and I don’t want to screw up the other one).
Has anyone got some ideas as to how I can resolve this.
Thanks in advance.
mph999
Need some advice if possible.
As part of a medical legal issue, we have via the solicitor engaged a medical expert from a company that specialises in providing experts, let’s call them xx.
Some background - my sister and brother-in-law are doctor / surgeon, so although they cannot be experts for this issue, they are both very clued up and experienced (B-in-L is in fact an expert witness, so we know the ins-and -outs of how this should work).
We paid approx £6000 for the report, and then a further £800 odd to answer a number of specific questions we put forward. This was unreasonable, the questions should have been in the original report without any prompting, if the report had been properly written in the first place. Nevertheless, we paid the sum as we are too far in. What then happened is the expert answered a few of the questions, but not the ones we submitted (25 in total). To answer the 25 should have taken no more than a couple of hours, probably less.
Aside of this, the report has multiple errors and a number of assumptions that are totally wrong and would, if left, lead to the wrong conclusion. It is normal that a report is adjusted before the final version - this should all be as part of the original fee.
We then attended a video meeting with the solicitor, a barrister and the expert - this went reasonably well and led to a few points that needed adding to the final version of the report, just 2 or 3 from memory.
Now the problem …
The solicitor asked xx to instruct the expert to amend the report, the expert has agreed but company xx is requesting a further £600 odd to ‘consider amending the report’.
Out of principle, I am now against this, we shouldn’t have had to pay extra for questions that weren’t answered, the original fee (according to B-in-L was inflated to start with). We are effectively being asked to pay the expert/ company xx to correct the mistakes they made.
We have paid for a service, a very significant sum, but have not received that service. My original thought was just to take company xx to small claims but because they were engaged via the solicitor I don’t think I can do that. And for obvious reasons, I don’t really fancy taking the solicitor on (partly because we actually have 2 medical legal issues, and I don’t want to screw up the other one).
Has anyone got some ideas as to how I can resolve this.
Thanks in advance.
mph999
Pay the £600. Life is to short. But they only get paid when the report is received in full in the agreed format . Amends. Also they need to answer the remaining questions from last time.
If you like read their t and c and I suspect it covers this. They are in a bit of a bind if not. You employed as experts and then want them to be guided / influenced by you. So who is the expert ? I can see why they charge.
If you like read their t and c and I suspect it covers this. They are in a bit of a bind if not. You employed as experts and then want them to be guided / influenced by you. So who is the expert ? I can see why they charge.
You briefed an expert.
An opinion was given.
Then you briefed him again.
A second opinion was given.
Why would you expect a second brief to be free of charge?
You are now amending the opinion to suit your needs after the opinion is given. If, as you seem to indicate, you are making material changes to the opinion, it would not be unreasonable for the expert to either refuse, or make the amendments if they see no change or interference with their evidence.
Again, you will incur a charge for that amendment. That is unless there is a one-off fixed fee.
Perhaps you should have got your B-I-L to write the instruction to the expert, then you could have had the advantage of his experience and not gone through the problem caused by what sounds like a bad and partial instruction.
You can, of course, reject the report and instruct someone else with the benefit of the report you already have. But you do have to pay for the work you have commissioned so far.
An opinion was given.
Then you briefed him again.
A second opinion was given.
Why would you expect a second brief to be free of charge?
You are now amending the opinion to suit your needs after the opinion is given. If, as you seem to indicate, you are making material changes to the opinion, it would not be unreasonable for the expert to either refuse, or make the amendments if they see no change or interference with their evidence.
Again, you will incur a charge for that amendment. That is unless there is a one-off fixed fee.
Perhaps you should have got your B-I-L to write the instruction to the expert, then you could have had the advantage of his experience and not gone through the problem caused by what sounds like a bad and partial instruction.
You can, of course, reject the report and instruct someone else with the benefit of the report you already have. But you do have to pay for the work you have commissioned so far.
I'd take slightly different view here...but you need to check the contract and brief / scope.
Errors should be corrected for free.
Not delivering agreed scope should be corrected for free, i.e you sent x questions, was given a price and they only answered y.
Asking for further info outside of agreed scope / T&C's is chargeable.
Errors should be corrected for free.
Not delivering agreed scope should be corrected for free, i.e you sent x questions, was given a price and they only answered y.
Asking for further info outside of agreed scope / T&C's is chargeable.
I would take it up with the solicitor, in writing. Send a letter headed as a complaint, and they will have to look into it.
If you have a gripe with a solicitor, you can escalate the matter to the Solicitor's Regulatory Authority. They work to avoid that because firstly, it costs the solicitor. You complain to SRA, they bill the solicitor a flat charge, I think £500, and then they look at the matter. Secondly, rightly or wrong, it goes on that solicitor's record with the SRA. So do not be afraid of taking them on.
As with all things, no one on here can say whether you are right or wrong, reasonable or unreasonable etc. If you arw unhappy with the service, say so, but always in writing along with the facts.
If you have a gripe with a solicitor, you can escalate the matter to the Solicitor's Regulatory Authority. They work to avoid that because firstly, it costs the solicitor. You complain to SRA, they bill the solicitor a flat charge, I think £500, and then they look at the matter. Secondly, rightly or wrong, it goes on that solicitor's record with the SRA. So do not be afraid of taking them on.
As with all things, no one on here can say whether you are right or wrong, reasonable or unreasonable etc. If you arw unhappy with the service, say so, but always in writing along with the facts.
mph999 said:
Some background - my sister and brother-in-law are doctor / surgeon, so although they cannot be experts for this issue, they are both very clued up and experienced (B-in-L is in fact an expert witness, so we know the ins-and -outs of how this should work).
If they/you know the "ins-and -outs of how this should work", then you've got more knowledge/experience than most on here. Ask you're brother-in-law what is appropriate in the circumstances, as he is an expert witness.I deal with medico-legal experts day in, day out, working for insurers dealing with injury claims.
Experts are a very strange group of people to deal with, and very rarely will they anything for free, particularly if you're asking them to amend a report following a conference with Counsel, which will have no doubt taken a few hours (have they billed you for that yet? If not, they will!)
My advice is to pay the fee. If the report cost £6k i'm going to assume your case is worth significant multiples more than that, as those are the type of fees you're looking at in very complex cases. In the grand scheme of things, £600 is not very much.
(And whilst I appreciate experts prepare their reports for the Court, they are in effect "your" expert, so always worth trying to keep them on side).
(As another aside, if you've had to ask 25 questions, and have a conference with your expert to get him to change his views or clarify things, maybe he's trying to tell you you perhaps don't have the case you thought you did. Just a thought!).
Experts are a very strange group of people to deal with, and very rarely will they anything for free, particularly if you're asking them to amend a report following a conference with Counsel, which will have no doubt taken a few hours (have they billed you for that yet? If not, they will!)
My advice is to pay the fee. If the report cost £6k i'm going to assume your case is worth significant multiples more than that, as those are the type of fees you're looking at in very complex cases. In the grand scheme of things, £600 is not very much.
(And whilst I appreciate experts prepare their reports for the Court, they are in effect "your" expert, so always worth trying to keep them on side).
(As another aside, if you've had to ask 25 questions, and have a conference with your expert to get him to change his views or clarify things, maybe he's trying to tell you you perhaps don't have the case you thought you did. Just a thought!).
TUS373 said:
I would take it up with the solicitor, in writing. Send a letter headed as a complaint, and they will have to look into it.
If you have a gripe with a solicitor, you can escalate the matter to the Solicitor's Regulatory Authority. They work to avoid that because firstly, it costs the solicitor. You complain to SRA, they bill the solicitor a flat charge, I think £500, and then they look at the matter. Secondly, rightly or wrong, it goes on that solicitor's record with the SRA. So do not be afraid of taking them on ...
Legal Ombudsman not SRA! If you have a gripe with a solicitor, you can escalate the matter to the Solicitor's Regulatory Authority. They work to avoid that because firstly, it costs the solicitor. You complain to SRA, they bill the solicitor a flat charge, I think £500, and then they look at the matter. Secondly, rightly or wrong, it goes on that solicitor's record with the SRA. So do not be afraid of taking them on ...
Thanks all
Some more info.
Before taking this on, my sister engaged some friends who cannot act as witnesses, as they knew the individual concerned. However, they individually went through the case and all came to the same conclusion. The case is in fact very medically simple and all the supporting evidence is in the notes. and blood results and photographic evidence.
The questions were provided at the beginning of the instruction to the expert, so they knew about these and they quoted their fee as writing the report, but an additional sum due to the number of questions. The questions did not come after the initial report, they were there at the beginning.
The questions were written in such a way that there is only one correct answer to each, and therefore, if answered, there can only be one conclusion. If the report was written diligently, then the answers to the questions would ve been included without the need of additional questions, but we know that this doesn t always happen, hence why they were provided in the first place.
So, we initially paid for a report and 25 questions to be answered as agreed by all parties.
What we got was a report containing multiple errors and inaccuracies, some of the evidence completely ignored, about six of the questions answered, and even then the questions had been altered from their original wording, when we gave specific instructions for the questions to be answered as written.
I should add, that the questions were reviewed by a third party prior to submission to ensure that they were fair and reasonable.
During the conference call, which we did pay the expert for, we were effectively able to go over some of the questions and with the help of the barrister, the expert agreed that the that the cause and outcome were as we suspected, and this pretty much lined up with the three unofficial reports we had.
So to be clear, we did not instruct the expert after the initial report by providing the questions, these were provided before the report was even started, and most of them were ignored, and those that were answered were not the exact questions we submitted. You can understand my frustration at being asked to pay further money to correct mistakes they made, not us.
Some more info.
Before taking this on, my sister engaged some friends who cannot act as witnesses, as they knew the individual concerned. However, they individually went through the case and all came to the same conclusion. The case is in fact very medically simple and all the supporting evidence is in the notes. and blood results and photographic evidence.
The questions were provided at the beginning of the instruction to the expert, so they knew about these and they quoted their fee as writing the report, but an additional sum due to the number of questions. The questions did not come after the initial report, they were there at the beginning.
The questions were written in such a way that there is only one correct answer to each, and therefore, if answered, there can only be one conclusion. If the report was written diligently, then the answers to the questions would ve been included without the need of additional questions, but we know that this doesn t always happen, hence why they were provided in the first place.
So, we initially paid for a report and 25 questions to be answered as agreed by all parties.
What we got was a report containing multiple errors and inaccuracies, some of the evidence completely ignored, about six of the questions answered, and even then the questions had been altered from their original wording, when we gave specific instructions for the questions to be answered as written.
I should add, that the questions were reviewed by a third party prior to submission to ensure that they were fair and reasonable.
During the conference call, which we did pay the expert for, we were effectively able to go over some of the questions and with the help of the barrister, the expert agreed that the that the cause and outcome were as we suspected, and this pretty much lined up with the three unofficial reports we had.
So to be clear, we did not instruct the expert after the initial report by providing the questions, these were provided before the report was even started, and most of them were ignored, and those that were answered were not the exact questions we submitted. You can understand my frustration at being asked to pay further money to correct mistakes they made, not us.
Edited by mph999 on Thursday 22 October 12:56
mph999 said:
Thanks all
Some more info.
Before taking this on, my sister engaged some friends who cannot act as witnesses, as they knew the individual concerned. However, they individually went through the case and all came to the same conclusion. The case is in fact very medically simple and all the supporting evidence is in the notes. and blood results and photographic evidence.
The questions were provided at the beginning of the instruction to the expert, so they knew about these and they quoted their fee as writing the report, but an additional sum due to the number of questions. The questions did not come after the initial report, they were there at the beginning.
The questions were written in such a way that there is only one correct answer to each, and therefore, if answered, there can only be one conclusion. If the report was written diligently, then the answers to the questions would ve been included without the need of additional questions, but we know that this doesn t always happen, hence why they were provided in the first place.
So, we initially paid for a report and 25 questions to be answered as agreed by all parties.
What we got was a report containing multiple errors and inaccuracies, some of the evidence completely ignored, about six of the questions answered, and even then the questions had been altered from their original wording, when we gave specific instructions for the questions to be answered as written.
I should add, that the questions were reviewed by a third party prior to submission to ensure that they were fair and reasonable.
During the conference call, which we did pay the expert for, we were effectively able to go over some of the questions and with the help of the barrister, the expert agreed that the that the cause and outcome were as we suspected, and this pretty much lined up with the three unofficial reports we had.
So to be clear, we did not instruct the expert after the initial report by providing the questions, these were provided before the report was even started, and most of them were ignored, and those that were answered were not the exact questions we submitted. You can understand my frustration at being asked to pay further money to correct mistakes they made, not us.
Understood - in that case I would be expecting the expert to deal with all of your questions fully, and included within his initial fee of £6k. I think paying the additional fee for the conference was a reasonable thing to do, but then being asked to pay another £600 for him to do what he should have done originally is a step too far, and should be pushed back on.Some more info.
Before taking this on, my sister engaged some friends who cannot act as witnesses, as they knew the individual concerned. However, they individually went through the case and all came to the same conclusion. The case is in fact very medically simple and all the supporting evidence is in the notes. and blood results and photographic evidence.
The questions were provided at the beginning of the instruction to the expert, so they knew about these and they quoted their fee as writing the report, but an additional sum due to the number of questions. The questions did not come after the initial report, they were there at the beginning.
The questions were written in such a way that there is only one correct answer to each, and therefore, if answered, there can only be one conclusion. If the report was written diligently, then the answers to the questions would ve been included without the need of additional questions, but we know that this doesn t always happen, hence why they were provided in the first place.
So, we initially paid for a report and 25 questions to be answered as agreed by all parties.
What we got was a report containing multiple errors and inaccuracies, some of the evidence completely ignored, about six of the questions answered, and even then the questions had been altered from their original wording, when we gave specific instructions for the questions to be answered as written.
I should add, that the questions were reviewed by a third party prior to submission to ensure that they were fair and reasonable.
During the conference call, which we did pay the expert for, we were effectively able to go over some of the questions and with the help of the barrister, the expert agreed that the that the cause and outcome were as we suspected, and this pretty much lined up with the three unofficial reports we had.
So to be clear, we did not instruct the expert after the initial report by providing the questions, these were provided before the report was even started, and most of them were ignored, and those that were answered were not the exact questions we submitted. You can understand my frustration at being asked to pay further money to correct mistakes they made, not us.
Edited by mph999 on Thursday 22 October 12:56
Check the T&C's, but he's not delivered against the contract from you say.
I only did expert witness once, many years ago, but we priced in one round of comments / corrections to address errors / lack of clarity in the initial bid. If I'd not answered the brief, I'd have fully expected to have to do so without additional charge AND had a stand up meeting without coffee with my boss.
That said, with medical stuff sometimes closure is worth having your leg lifted unfortunately. I find the medical profession extremely unscrupulous at times unfortunately because a small minority know this.
I only did expert witness once, many years ago, but we priced in one round of comments / corrections to address errors / lack of clarity in the initial bid. If I'd not answered the brief, I'd have fully expected to have to do so without additional charge AND had a stand up meeting without coffee with my boss.
That said, with medical stuff sometimes closure is worth having your leg lifted unfortunately. I find the medical profession extremely unscrupulous at times unfortunately because a small minority know this.
mph999 said:
Thanks all
Some more info.
Before taking this on, my sister engaged some friends who cannot act as witnesses, as they knew the individual concerned. However, they individually went through the case and all came to the same conclusion. The case is in fact very medically simple and all the supporting evidence is in the notes. and blood results and photographic evidence.
The questions were provided at the beginning of the instruction to the expert, so they knew about these and they quoted their fee as writing the report, but an additional sum due to the number of questions. The questions did not come after the initial report, they were there at the beginning.
The questions were written in such a way that there is only one correct answer to each, and therefore, if answered, there can only be one conclusion. If the report was written diligently, then the answers to the questions would ve been included without the need of additional questions, but we know that this doesn t always happen, hence why they were provided in the first place.
So, we initially paid for a report and 25 questions to be answered as agreed by all parties.
What we got was a report containing multiple errors and inaccuracies, some of the evidence completely ignored, about six of the questions answered, and even then the questions had been altered from their original wording, when we gave specific instructions for the questions to be answered as written.
I should add, that the questions were reviewed by a third party prior to submission to ensure that they were fair and reasonable.
During the conference call, which we did pay the expert for, we were effectively able to go over some of the questions and with the help of the barrister, the expert agreed that the that the cause and outcome were as we suspected, and this pretty much lined up with the three unofficial reports we had.
So to be clear, we did not instruct the expert after the initial report by providing the questions, these were provided before the report was even started, and most of them were ignored, and those that were answered were not the exact questions we submitted. You can understand my frustration at being asked to pay further money to correct mistakes they made, not us.
I don’t believe you needed an expert.Some more info.
Before taking this on, my sister engaged some friends who cannot act as witnesses, as they knew the individual concerned. However, they individually went through the case and all came to the same conclusion. The case is in fact very medically simple and all the supporting evidence is in the notes. and blood results and photographic evidence.
The questions were provided at the beginning of the instruction to the expert, so they knew about these and they quoted their fee as writing the report, but an additional sum due to the number of questions. The questions did not come after the initial report, they were there at the beginning.
The questions were written in such a way that there is only one correct answer to each, and therefore, if answered, there can only be one conclusion. If the report was written diligently, then the answers to the questions would ve been included without the need of additional questions, but we know that this doesn t always happen, hence why they were provided in the first place.
So, we initially paid for a report and 25 questions to be answered as agreed by all parties.
What we got was a report containing multiple errors and inaccuracies, some of the evidence completely ignored, about six of the questions answered, and even then the questions had been altered from their original wording, when we gave specific instructions for the questions to be answered as written.
I should add, that the questions were reviewed by a third party prior to submission to ensure that they were fair and reasonable.
During the conference call, which we did pay the expert for, we were effectively able to go over some of the questions and with the help of the barrister, the expert agreed that the that the cause and outcome were as we suspected, and this pretty much lined up with the three unofficial reports we had.
So to be clear, we did not instruct the expert after the initial report by providing the questions, these were provided before the report was even started, and most of them were ignored, and those that were answered were not the exact questions we submitted. You can understand my frustration at being asked to pay further money to correct mistakes they made, not us.
Edited by mph999 on Thursday 22 October 12:56
You seem to be requesting a puppet to represent your own view. I would have refused that brief.
I wish you luck.
It must be a very complex case or you are engaging a very senior and specialised doctor because £6K for a report seems a bit excessive, particularly when it is just based on medical records that have been provided. I wonder how the courts will view it when it comes to any awards being made. There must be more to this and surprised that your medical relatives accepted it.
Beggarall said:
It must be a very complex case or you are engaging a very senior and specialised doctor because £6K for a report seems a bit excessive, particularly when it is just based on medical records that have been provided. I wonder how the courts will view it when it comes to any awards being made. There must be more to this and surprised that your medical relatives accepted it.
That's around the going rate for a multi-track caseNicetobenice said:
That's around the going rate for a multi-track case
That's nice work (if you can get it)!! I can see how the time on video conferencing calls with barristers could add to the total but presumably the review of the case record and compiling the report can't have taken that long with the conclusions presumably being the same (or similar to) those reached by non-expert-witness friends. Was the fee structure agreed from the beginning? Who is footing the bill? - if this goes further it is going to cost a lot more!!Beggarall said:
Nicetobenice said:
That's around the going rate for a multi-track case
That's nice work (if you can get it)!! I can see how the time on video conferencing calls with barristers could add to the total but presumably the review of the case record and compiling the report can't have taken that long with the conclusions presumably being the same (or similar to) those reached by non-expert-witness friends. Was the fee structure agreed from the beginning? Who is footing the bill? - if this goes further it is going to cost a lot more!!Beggarall said:
That's nice work (if you can get it)!! I can see how the time on video conferencing calls with barristers could add to the total but presumably the review of the case record and compiling the report can't have taken that long with the conclusions presumably being the same (or similar to) those reached by non-expert-witness friends. Was the fee structure agreed from the beginning? Who is footing the bill? - if this goes further it is going to cost a lot more!!
It's around 200 quid an hour and the solicitor agrees it as a disbursement.Fee agreed up front for the report and an hourly rate thereafter
Nicetobenice said:
It's around 200 quid an hour and the solicitor agrees it as a disbursement.
Fee agreed up front for the report and an hourly rate thereafter
Well £6K buys a lot of time then! I would think most of the initial charges went to the Medico-Legal firm. It is these costs that put litigation off the map for most people and part of the reason why insurance costs are so high. In these sorts of legal battle the only real winners are the lawyers. Iniquitous - and it is replicated everywhere. Fee agreed up front for the report and an hourly rate thereafter
Speed Matters | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff