JANINE R
v
THE ROYAL BOURNEMOUTH & CHRISTCHURCH NHS TRUST
Miss Janine R was born on 5th February 1967 and so was 26 at the date of the accident on the 1st July 1993. She was 32 at the date of settlement on 1st March 1999.
She suffered an acute sequestrated disc prolapse at L5/S1 during the course of her employment as a nurse. The disc was removed a couple of months after the accident, but the Plaintiff never got back to work, and her employment was terminated on the grounds of ill health in 1995. She was registered as 50% disabled for the purposes of incapacity benefit.
Throughout the course of the Plaintiff's action, the Defendants were represented by Mr David Grimley, the Technical Claims Manager of St Paul International Insurance Company Limited. He was always sympathetic and humane, whilst ensuring that he preserved the Defendants' position appropriately. In particular, he was keen, as was Mr Martin Coyne of Betesh Fox, the Plaintiff's solicitor, to arrange a settlement discussion. That took place on 1st March 1999, between Mr Grimley, Mr Coyne and me. We spent 4 hours discussing and negotiating, without a single cross word, at the end of which time Mr Grimley made an offer which we were able to recommend to the Plaintiff, and which she accepted immediately. We all felt, even before we finalised settlement, that the meeting had been enormously worthwhile, demonstrating the advantages when both sides negotiate in good faith, pursuing the principle of fair settlement of an action (fair to both sides).
The Plaintiff's Schedule of Loss set out the figures as follows:
Past loss to date of settlement:
| Loss of earnings: | 56,587 |
| Care: | 26,242 |
| Miscellaneous: | 24,274 |
| Total Past Loss: | 107,103 |
Interest:
According to Wadey v Surrey County Council (The Times 8.1.99), benefits should
not be deducted before the calculation of interest. Martin Coyne and I were
both doubtful about the reasoning behind that authority and, in the spirit
of a principled negotiation, we conceded that, despite Wadey, we ought to
be flexible on this point.
| The claim on the basis of Wadey was: | 24,709 |
| Total Past Loss plus Interest: | 131,812 |
Future Losses: Multipliers: the Schedule used Ogden Tables 11 onwards, and a discount rate of 2.5% (there is currently a view that the discount rate of 3% set in Wells, Thomas and Page may be open to question - see the comment by Sir Michael Ogden in the current issue of Quantum).
| Loss of Earnings: | 297,452 |
| Loss of chance of promotion: | 24,090 |
| Loss of pension: | 71,217 |
| Care: | 140,949 |
| Additional support during pregnancy and child care: | 177,463 |
| Additional care from the age of 65: | 66,185 |
| Accommodation: | 261,243 |
| Equipment: | 80,043 |
| Transport: | |
| Capital: | 57,360 |
| Annual: | 18,069 |
| Related equipment: | 5,262 |
| Future services (exterior maintenance, interior maintenance and gardening): | 28,600 |
| Miscellaneous (holidays, prescriptions, extra heating, additional clothing and chiropody): | 62,264 |
The total of the Schedule, excluding general damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity, was £1,316,832.
Despite the obvious attraction of arguing that the discount rate really should be 2.5%, Martin Coyne and I agreed that, in the context of this negotiation, we would use 3%. We did so because of the attitude of David Grimley, on the basis that, in order to achieve settlement, each side has to give ground. We then went through all the figures shown in the Schedule, deducting quite significant amounts, and agreed a settlement at £1.1 million.
There are two reasons for reporting this case. First, it was a wonderful demonstration of how, if an insurer is prepared to enter into "principled" negotiations (that is, with the object of achieving a fair result for both sides), he is likely to achieve a good result at minimum cost. Secondly, the settlement agreed demonstrates just how disabling and significant these back injuries can be for nurses.
Bill Braithwaite Q.C. was instructed by Martin Coyne of Betesh Fox, Manchester.