The following case study examines establishing liability, and securing funding for recommended treatments. It also serves to illustrate the length of time which a matter can take to resolve, and the reasons why.
Without Janine’s stubborn determination to continue on behalf of the client, it might be that Mr M would not have attained the compensation due to him.
All too often, claims against Local Authorities are swept under the carpet and considered, by some firms, to be “not worth the effort” or “too difficult”. The issue with claims of this nature is that Local Authorities have a Statutory Defence which provides that, so long as they are able to establish that they have a “reasonable” system of inspection and maintenance, then they cannot be found liable for accidents and injuries caused by the defective state of the highway. We have of course previously reported on cases which we have taken over from other firms who have written off the case as a “no chance claim” and we have subsequently gone on to successfully settle those claims upon our client’s behalf.
This case, in particular, shows how perseverance not only in relation to establishing that the Local Authority are to blame is vital but, also, to ensure that the injured party receives the appropriate medical treatment and the appropriate damages in respect of their injuries. Acting on behalf of a client in connection with a claim of this nature does not only involve persistence and determination in relation to establishing liability in the first place but, further, requires a level of tenacity and, indeed, stubbornness, in ensuring that the client receives the appropriate medical treatment in respect of the injuries received and a fair level of compensation.
Mr M instructed Janine Griffiths of Martyn Prowel Solicitors in respect of an injury he sustained when he tripped over defective paving on a footpath on 8 September 2011. As a result of the fall, Mr M sustained a dislocated and broken ankle and had to undergo surgery to have metalwork and pins inserted into the same.
Martyn Prowel Solicitors submitted a Letter of Claim to Cardiff County Council on 25 October 2011 setting out details of the accident, providing photographs and measurements of the defect which had caused the same and details of the injuries sustained by Mr M.
On the 28 February 2012 the Council’s Solicitors eventually responded confirming that they were denying liability in respect of Mr M’s accident, primarily on the basis that the area where he had fallen was the responsibility of the Housing Department and not the Highways Department. We responded immediately, setting out a number of detailed issues in relation to liability, including the fact that whichever Department was responsible for the area in question, they had failed to have in place a system of inspection and maintenance and, therefore, failed to ensure the health and safety of members of the public. A number of other issues raised within that letter which sought to prove to the Council’s Solicitors that the Council were ultimately responsible for the location of the accident and had failed to maintain the same.
After several months of chasing the Council’s Solicitors for a response, they eventually responded to us on 29 June 2012 confirming that they admitted that the Council had breached their duty of care and would, therefore, be making a payment of compensation to Mr M.
We then proceeded to obtain medical evidence in relation to Mr M’s injuries with a view to progressing his claim.
The Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon who we instructed to examine Mr M and prepare a Report of his injuries recommended that he undergo further surgery in order to have the plates and screws removed from his ankle, to be followed by an intensive course of physiotherapy treatment and then by a re-assessment 2 to 3 months following that treatment. As the Defendant Council had now admitted that the accident, and therefore the injuries, were their fault, we requested that they fund the surgery and treatment on a private basis in order to speed up our client’s recovery and, in turn, the settlement of the claim.
Unfortunately, once again, the Defendant’s Solicitors failed to respond in relation to that matter or to provide any funding in respect of the recommended treatment and, after three months of chasing the Council’s Solicitors for confirmation as to whether they would even consider funding the surgery, we issued Court proceedings upon behalf of Mr M in order that we could then make an Application to the Court for an interim payment in respect of the surgery costs.
Matters then proceeded through the Court process with the Defendant’s Solicitors attempting to settle the claim without our client even having received the treatment recommended. Eventually, (some 11 months following our original request for treatment funding!), the Defendant’s Solicitors provided payment in respect of the recommended surgery.
Mr M underwent the surgery and intensive physiotherapy treatment and successfully recovered from his injuries, albeit a little later than he would have done had the Council’s legal representatives taken a reasonable approach to the same.
The claim was finally settled in the total sum of £16,000, with the Defendants to pay the Claimant’s costs.
Mr M was pleased with the settlement and, more importantly, to have received the treatment recommended and to have secured a good recovery from the injuries sustained.
Janine Griffiths of Martyn Prowel Solicitors said, “This was a difficult claim to deal with from beginning to end. The Defendant Council were, unfortunately, particularly slow to respond on all issues throughout this claim and caused unnecessary and frustrating delays throughout.
I am delighted that, despite this, we were able to persuade the Defendants that, firstly, the accident and injuries were their fault and, secondly, that payment in respect of the recommended treatment was appropriate in order to allow Mr M an opportunity to recover from his injuries with the benefit of private treatment and rehabilitation.
Luckily for Mr M, I am far more stubborn and persistent than the Council’s Insurers and Solicitors and the matter was successfully concluded in Mr M’s favour”.