Report comment

It is entirely understandable that the LSG readers here represented, all of whom can be assumed to be making a living out of whiplash injury, are aghast at the proposed changes.

Yet the presence of the condition is entirely predicated on the honesty of the claimant. There are no objective physical signs or tests to confirm the pain is as bad as the claimant says.

The much vaunted panel of doctors accredited, via Medco, by a course of mandatory training, was optimistically expected to sort the wheat from the chaff. In reality, despite that "training", the Expert Witness can do no more than record what the claimant says, and then give an opinion on whether that is reasonable.

And therein lies the crux. The “reasonable” prognosis period is almost completely arbitrary, and tends to default to norms which reflect the current paradigm. Namely acceptance that consequential whiplash symptoms can last for weeks, months or years.

In that context, the assumption, by many contributors to this thread, that the hundreds of thousands of whiplash claimants have been as badly injured as their medical reports suggest is entirely reasonable, and consistent with that paradigm.

But the elephant in the room remains the fact that such opinions owe more to custom and practice than science or even common sense.

The MoJ ‘s attempts to restore some logical thinking to the issue is surely to be applauded.