Extreme Compo Claim
Discussion
http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/norfolk_motorist_sued_...
EDP said:
A high-flying executive is suing a Norfolk motorist for £2m compensation over crash injuries which he says ruined his career - despite claims by medics that his symptoms could be all in his mind.
Peter Siegel, 44, says his life has been overshadowed by a cluster of nightmarish “cognitive, physical and behavioural deficits” which all stem from a “rear-end shunting accident” in Carrow Road, Norwich, in November 2009.
Now, five years after the accident, Mr Siegel is suing over the “severe, subtle and permanent closed brain injury” which he blames on the 30mph collision that resulted in his car being written off, his barrister, Marcus Grant, told the High Court in London.
In the years after the crash he was dogged by symptoms of post traumatic stress disorder, personality and behavioural changes, and episodes of “ballistic temper outbursts” which have blighted his life, the court heard.
In 2009, he was a senior executive at IT giants, Hewlett Packard, and a man of “very superior intelligence”, Mr Grant told Mr Justice Wilkie.
However, since the accident, his once glittering career has nose-dived.
“He endeavoured to struggle on in the IT sector with the encumbrance of the symptoms from his head injury,” said Mr Grant.
“He lost three jobs in the period of four and a half years after the accident, having declared the fact of his brain injury to each employer.
“He has not worked since January 2014 and he will be unable to return to that sector.
“His residual earning capacity is severely compromised. He now brings a compensation claim for £2.172 million”.
Before the 2009 crash, Mr Siegel relished the work environment and “thrived on stress”, the court heard.
However, in 2010, he was taken off managing a major contract for Hewlett Packard because he sensed he was seen as being “damaged goods”.
Mr Siegel, of Amazon Lofts, Tenby Street, Birmingham, is suing the insurers for the other motorist involved in the collision - Lester Pummell, of Brundall.
Liability for the accident is not disputed but lawyers for the insurers are contesting the amount of compensation due to Mr Siegel.
Mr Grant said the insurers’ legal team now suggest that “as a matter of probability he did not suffer any - or any significant - brain injury”.
Instead, medical experts for the defence suggest that his symptoms are psychiatric or psychological in origin.
Any “loss of cognitive function” affecting his career must be linked to “prior vulnerability” and other factors - such as domestic upheaval, work stress, and a “misinformed belief system that he has suffered a brain injury when in fact he has not”, defence lawyers argue.
The High Court hearing continues. Mr Justice Wilkie is expected to reserve his judgment until a later date.
Surely if someone has suffered a physical brain injury, which is what I think is being suggested here, then that would be detectable by a scan - at least in the time immediately after the event?Peter Siegel, 44, says his life has been overshadowed by a cluster of nightmarish “cognitive, physical and behavioural deficits” which all stem from a “rear-end shunting accident” in Carrow Road, Norwich, in November 2009.
Now, five years after the accident, Mr Siegel is suing over the “severe, subtle and permanent closed brain injury” which he blames on the 30mph collision that resulted in his car being written off, his barrister, Marcus Grant, told the High Court in London.
In the years after the crash he was dogged by symptoms of post traumatic stress disorder, personality and behavioural changes, and episodes of “ballistic temper outbursts” which have blighted his life, the court heard.
In 2009, he was a senior executive at IT giants, Hewlett Packard, and a man of “very superior intelligence”, Mr Grant told Mr Justice Wilkie.
However, since the accident, his once glittering career has nose-dived.
“He endeavoured to struggle on in the IT sector with the encumbrance of the symptoms from his head injury,” said Mr Grant.
“He lost three jobs in the period of four and a half years after the accident, having declared the fact of his brain injury to each employer.
“He has not worked since January 2014 and he will be unable to return to that sector.
“His residual earning capacity is severely compromised. He now brings a compensation claim for £2.172 million”.
Before the 2009 crash, Mr Siegel relished the work environment and “thrived on stress”, the court heard.
However, in 2010, he was taken off managing a major contract for Hewlett Packard because he sensed he was seen as being “damaged goods”.
Mr Siegel, of Amazon Lofts, Tenby Street, Birmingham, is suing the insurers for the other motorist involved in the collision - Lester Pummell, of Brundall.
Liability for the accident is not disputed but lawyers for the insurers are contesting the amount of compensation due to Mr Siegel.
Mr Grant said the insurers’ legal team now suggest that “as a matter of probability he did not suffer any - or any significant - brain injury”.
Instead, medical experts for the defence suggest that his symptoms are psychiatric or psychological in origin.
Any “loss of cognitive function” affecting his career must be linked to “prior vulnerability” and other factors - such as domestic upheaval, work stress, and a “misinformed belief system that he has suffered a brain injury when in fact he has not”, defence lawyers argue.
The High Court hearing continues. Mr Justice Wilkie is expected to reserve his judgment until a later date.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff