PI Brief Update

Medical Inconsistencies at Trial: Why an Honest Claimant’s Case Can Still Succeed - Ghosia Ismail, Solicitor, RTA, Express Solicitors

27/10/26. A recent case I worked on highlights why inconsistencies in medical evidence are not always fatal to a personal injury claim, particularly where the claimant’s honesty is accepted by the Court.

Anyone who conducts personal injury litigation will be familiar with the difficulties that can arise when a claimant’s evidence does not entirely match their medical report. These inconsistencies can become a major focus at trial, particularly where a defendant seeks to undermine the claimant’s credibility or challenge the injuries being claimed.

However, a recent County Court trial demonstrated that a claimant does not need to have a perfect recollection of events to succeed. Despite making several potentially damaging concessions under cross-examination, the claimant was ultimately found to be an honest witness and recovered damages, together with favourable Part 36 consequences.

Background to the Claim

The claim arose from a road traffic accident on 4 December 2022.

Although breach of duty was admitted, the defendant disputed causation and the extent of the injuries claimed. The claimant alleged injuries to her neck, shoulders, lower back, right knee, left thumb and right wrist, together with psychological symptoms.

By the time the matter reached trial, the defendant’s case centred largely on inconsistencies between the claimant’s medical report, witness statement and oral evidence.

Medical Inconsistencies Under Cross-Examination

The claimant faced robust cross-examination about the injuries she had sustained and how long her symptoms had lasted.

One of the more significant moments came when she accepted that her medical report was not “wholly accurate”. At one stage, she described it as though the expert had been examining two different people. Unsurprisingly, the defendant sought to rely on those comments to undermine the medical evidence.

There were also discrepancies concerning the alleged right knee injury. The medical report referred to an injury caused by contact with the interior of the vehicle, whereas the claimant maintained during cross-examination that her knee had not struck the dashboard.

Further difficulties arose when the claimant appeared to accept that her thumb and wrist symptoms had resolved within approximately one week, despite the medical expert providing a considerably longer prognosis. On the face of it, these were significant concessions. However, the Judge was not persuaded that they rendered the claimant’s evidence unreliable.

The Judge’s Assessment of Credibility and Causation

One of the most important aspects of the judgment was the Judge’s assessment of the claimant’s credibility. The Judge accepted that the claimant was an honest, albeit unsophisticated, witness whose recollection had been affected by the passage of time.

The Court also recognised that she had struggled during cross-examination and appeared to have agreed with certain propositions without fully appreciating their implications. Importantly, although the claimant had suggested that her medical report was inaccurate, the defendant had not explored those alleged inaccuracies in sufficient detail.

Simply obtaining an admission that a report is not entirely accurate was not enough to justify rejecting its contents. The Judge considered that the claimant’s concessions about the duration of her thumb and wrist symptoms had been made under pressure and did not accurately reflect the medical evidence. The Court therefore accepted the supported prognosis for those injuries.

That did not mean every aspect of the claim succeeded. The Judge rejected the alleged right knee injury, finding that the claimant had not established that it was caused by the accident. This was an important distinction. The Judge was prepared to accept the claimant’s overall honesty without accepting every injury she alleged.

It is a useful reminder that credibility and causation are separate issues. A claimant can be genuinely injured and still be mistaken about particular details.

The Importance of Supporting Witness Evidence

Another important feature of the trial was the evidence given by the claimant’s daughter.

The defendant had questioned why the claimant had not sought immediate medical treatment despite describing significant symptoms following the collision. The claimant explained that her daughter, had helped her during her recovery. The daughter attended trial and gave evidence about the care and assistance she had provided.

The Judge described her as an impressive witness and accepted her evidence in full. This was particularly helpful in supporting the claimant’s account of her recovery and the difficulties she experienced following the accident. The daughter’s evidence ultimately supported the claimant’s claim for care and assistance, which was allowed in full.

For practitioners, this serves as a useful reminder of the value of witness evidence from family members, particularly where a claimant has received informal care or has limited records of medical treatment. Such evidence can provide the Court with a clearer picture of how injuries have affected a claimant’s day-to-day life.

Part 36 Consequences and Permission to Appeal

Having considered the evidence, the claimant successfully beat her own Part 36 offer, securing judgment in her favour, inclusive of the applicable Part 36 uplifts. The Court also awarded fixed recoverable costs, together with indemnity costs and disbursements.

Following judgment, the defendant sought permission to appeal. The proposed appeal focused on the Judge’s treatment of the medical evidence, particularly the fact that the claimant had herself acknowledged inaccuracies in the expert report. The defendant argued that the Court should not have accepted medical evidence which the claimant had questioned during cross-examination.

The trial Judge refused permission. In doing so, the Judge maintained that the claimant’s acknowledgment of inaccuracies in her medical report was not sufficient to undermine the reliability of the medical evidence. The Judge also stood by the finding that the claimant was an honest witness who had made certain concessions under pressure.

Key Takeaways for Practitioners

The case is a useful reminder that an inconsistency is not necessarily evidence of dishonesty, and a difficult cross-examination does not automatically mean an unsuccessful claim. Ultimately, the question is whether the evidence, considered fairly and in its entirety, establishes the claim on the balance of probabilities.

Image ©iStockphoto.com/Charday Penn