ANDREW L

and

GLAN CLYWD DGH NHS TRUST

SETTLEMENT REPORT

Mr Andrew L was born on the 19th April 1971 and so was 23 at the date of the accident on the 22nd January 1995. He was 28 at the date of settlement in November 1999.

Mr L was involved in a road traffic accident, following which he was taken to his local hospital, where they failed to notice a fracture at T7. As time passed, he became neurologically impaired, and eventually became incompletely paraplegic. His case was listed for trial in November 1999, and settled a week beforehand at a joint consultation.

No figures were positively agreed by the Defendants, but some general guidance can be obtained from the way in which we valued the claim.

PAST LOSSES

Earnings: the Claimant was a tool maker, his average net monthly earnings being £891. He was unable to return to that job, because of the residual disability and handicap, and he had not worked since the accident. £58,000

Past care which was nearly agreed between the parties - with a 25% Housecroft v. Burnett deduction, the figure would have been £12,000

Accommodation Expenses: the Claimant moved from his existing house into a 3 bedroomed bungalow, where he lives with his parents. The combination of moving costs, Roberts v Johnstone, adaptation costs and miscellaneous costs came to £12,000

Travel £5,000

Equipment: bed, physio, mobile phone, computer, furniture, clothing, heating, telephone and various other things £9,000

FUTURE LOSS AND EXPENSE

Earnings: we used tables 13 onwards of the Ogden tables, and a 2% multiplier, to a retirement age of 62. We acknowledged that the 2% multiplier was not guaranteed, and compromised accordingly. The real issue between the parties was whether the Claimant has a residual earning capacity. Because he can still walk (up to 150 yards before pain sets in), and does not give the impression of being paralysed, it is easy to under-estimate the difficulties in finding suitable employment. It was agreed that he could not return to tool making, and therefore needed re-training. The issue therefore was whether re-training would be sufficient to allow him to work, remembering that he suffers considerable pain. With no residual earning capacity, the claim was for £371,000, but we felt that a compromise would be

£175,000

Pension £5,000

Care: surprisingly, our consultant gave a life expectancy to "age 70 or beyond", possibly because the Claimant suffers from some high blood pressure, although it is controlled by medication. I felt that this was a low life expectancy. Maggie Sargent had, in my opinion sensibly, predicted that ageing would cause an increased need for care from the age of 50 to 60, and a further increase from 60 to 70. The claim was £301,000, but again we had to make an assessment of how the care package might work out, and we felt that a Judge might award £175,000

Medical Expenses and Therapies £20,000

Accommodation £75,000

Equipment £75,000

Transport £70,000

Holidays £15,000

PAIN, SUFFERING AND LOSS OF AMENITY

This was not an easy case to value, because on the one hand Mr L can walk, but on the other he is significantly disabled and handicapped. A compromise figure would be £60,000 to £70,000.

BILL BRAITHWAITE Q.C., the Consultant Editor of Kemp & Kemp, who practises from Liverpool, Manchester and London, led Gerard Martin. They were instructed by Helen Shaw of Hugh Potter & Co of Manchester.