Report comment

In response to Mr Pitt, it takes several years of exposure to the sort of medical evidence that only the best and partial witnesses give under serious cross-examination together with the mounting realisation of reading outright lies in medical reports filed in support not of bogus but grossly exaggerated claims. The mis-named "Whiplash" is a useful starting point. I used to use the Head of a Spinal Injuries Department in an area where there was a lot of mining and very serious spinal injuries. His position was very simple, and that was that few if any of the "experts" writing these reports had ever seen a serious spinal injury. Their use of terms such as "serious" to a mostly trivial soft tissue injury belied the worthlessness of their opinions. Today, under the CPR, he wouldn't be instructed in anything but the worst-case claim, but he brought sanity to a lunatic asylum where predominantly District Judiciary have no meaningful personal injury experience. The JSB Guidelines doesn't have a Chapter on partial and misleading medical reports.