G.T. and T.B.
and
D.G.B.
SETTLEMENT REPORT
Above knee amputations
Two settlements at about £1 million
Dorset Orthopaedic artificial limbs
1. Mr G.T. was 27 at the date of the accident in 1995, and 33 at the time of settlement
in March 2001. Ms T.B. was born in 1966 and so was 28 when the accident happened,
and 34 at settlement. They were knocked off their motorbike by a tractor.
2. A settlement meeting was arranged a few weeks before trial. As usual, the defence
legal team tried us out with a low offer first, and then, when we refused it,
they made their real offer. The figures below were not agreed by the defence,
but are a realistic estimate of what a judge would have ordered.
G.T.
PAIN, SUFFERING AND LOSS OF AMENITY
3. In addition to amputation of the leg above the knee, Mr GT developed serious
low back pain as a result of the injury, and he sustained a nasty injury to
one arm; he also suffered significantly from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.
He had not been satisfied by the NHS artificial limbs. We thought this might
be in the region of £65 - £75,000.
FINANCIAL LOSS
4. Mr GT was in a stable job which he enjoyed, and we simply quantified his
loss of earnings on that basis at about £450,000, with loss
of pension at £44,000.
5. Miscellaneous expenses were £6,500.
6. The Claimants had bought a house months before the accident;
their ambition was to live the good life on a smallholding. Because of the accident,
they were unable to take their time to convert the house, using old materials,
and had instead to employ builders, which was particularly galling because they
had extensive experience of building works. In addition to the cost of the building
work, we claimed for the cost of adapting Mr GT's parents' house for wheelchair
use, installation of a stairlift, making good, and carpet cleaning, plus the installation
of a handrail, heating and insulation for the parents' swimming pool.
7. Care (both past and future) were complicated by the fact that
the Claimants live together, and so they could share care. There was a claim for
the extra costs of parenthood, because the Claimants intended to have a family,
including the employment and maintenance of a resident nanny. A significant part
of the claim was for past and future help on the smallholding and in the garden,
and this was treated differently from the normal domestic care. The parents had
done a huge amount of work, and some of that was costed at building rates, and
some at case management rates.
8. The Claimants were both keen on motorbikes, and before the accident they had
no intention of changing to cars. They therefore claimed for a four wheel drive
car, plus two quad bikes to help them get round the smallholding, plus scooters
for shopping and the like.
9. There were various items of equipment which would make life easier, including
a wheelchair, a special bath and a bed.
10. The claim for the Dorset Orthopaedic legs was put at £286,000, on the basis
that the service by the NHS had not produced a satisfactory leg, and therefore
the Claimant was entitled to pursue good quality mobility elsewhere. The defence
responded, as they so often seem to, by challenging the principle that the Claimant
was entitled to go to Dorset Orthopaedic; this seems to me to be a hopeless line
to take if there is a history of poor limbs from the NHS, stretching over several
years. The real issues were whether the true remedy would be to get Dorset, or
another prosthetist, to spend additional time on the NHS legs in order to make
them fit properly, because that seems to have been at the heart of the problem.
If that was the solution, as it might have been, the claim would have been decimated.
Another issue would have been whether the Claimant was entitled to have two Dorset
legs in addition to a water leg, and presumably an NHS leg; if one Dorset leg
would suffice, it would cost £100,000 less. The last main area of disagreement
was whether the Claimant was entitled to recover for the cost of a cosmetic cover
on his Dorset legs (on one only, or on both?). Those covers are expensive, but
why should we assume that it is only women who are conscious of their appearance,
particularly after the loss of a leg?
11. This claim was settled for £1.1 million (from which 20% had
to be deducted for contributory negligence).
T.B.
PAIN, SUFFERING AND LOSS OF AMENITY
12. The injuries were very similar, except that this Claimant's arm injury
was worse, and that she did not suffer from the bad back or the PTSD.
FINANCIAL LOSS
13. The points which arose were also similar, except that the loss of earnings
was complicated by redundancy which would have occurred in any event.
14. This claim was settled for £1.1 million.
11 March 2001
Bill Braithwaite Q.C. and John Denniss were instructed by Michelle
Lethaby of Clarke Willmott and Clarke of Bristol.
****