A team from Hilary Meredith Solicitors Ltd put on their...
A summary of the ruling by the Court of Appeal in the recent case of Mansfield v Mansfield (2011).A summary of the ruling by the Court of Appeal...
Injured Cyclists could have their compensation reduced if they choose not to wear a helmet.A summary of the ruling by the High Court in...
CASE STUDY
K v G
On 17 June 2004, the Claimant, K, was crossing a main road when she was run down by an articulated heavy goods vehicle driven by the Defendant (G). As a result she sustained life threatening injury to her left leg which necessitated an above knee amputation.
K’s recovery was complicated by the development of an MRSA infection and she was in hospital for 10 weeks before being discharged home in a wheelchair. As a result of the above knee amputation, K has significant impairment in her mobility and function and suffers from pain over her stump, phantom limb pain and pain in her other knee when standing and attempting to walk with her prosthesis.
K was fitted with a prosthetic leg approximately 10 months after the accident however the comfort of the prosthetic limb is very poor and she is only able to use it for short periods per day. K’s difficulties in mobilising are exacerbated by pre-existing osteoarthritis in her right knee and as a result she is largely dependent on a wheelchair.
Prior to the accident K was generally mobile and active and independent in terms of personal care and domestic activities. Following the accident, and in particular following the death of her husband, she became very isolated in her home and her social life was significantly reduced. She was reliant upon carers provided by social services and was trapped in her home unless a family member visited her. As a result she tended to spend long periods in bed. She required assistance with personal care and domestic tasks.
In addition to her physical injuries, K suffered a significant psychological reaction as a result of the accident consisting of a depressive episode and phobic anxiety disorder.
K was living in a two storey terraced house at the time of the accident, but, following the accident, was unable to access the upstairs.
Hilary Meredith Solicitors were instructed almost three years after the accident. Court proceedings were issued and liability was agreed between the parties on an 80:20 basis in favour of the Claimant.
An interim payment was obtained to enable K to purchase some equipment.
Expert evidence was obtained in respect of the K’s care needs, accommodation needs and equipment needs. The Claimant’s home was deemed unsuitable for her housing needs and she required a bungalow, suitably adapted for wheelchair use, close to shops and public services.
Hilary Meredith Solicitors made an application to Court to obtain a further interim payment to enable K to instruct a Case Manager to coordinate her care and support and organise rehabilitation.
For more serious injury compensation claim information please click on the following links:
Following exchange of expert evidence with the Defendant, a settlement meeting was held which led to successful negotiation of a settlement in the sum of £760,000 (including previous interim payments made) which will enable K to purchase a bungalow and for it to be adapted to her needs, implement a care package and purchase the equipment she needs to live as independently as possible.
