A Collection is a selection of features, articles, comments and opinions on any given theme or topic. It allows you to stay up‑to‑date with what interests you most.
Login here to access your saved articles and followed authors.
We have sent you an email so you can reset your password.
Sorry, we had a problem.
Tags related to this article
Published 4 November 2019
The question of what was said by a Claimant during an appointment with a medical expert can often become a key issue in clinical negligence claims, particularly when the Claimant asserts that the expert has not accurately recorded their account of their injuries. The decision by Master Davison in Mustard v Flower, which has just been published, might mean that this issue will increasingly be resolved by the recording of expert appointments.
Mustard v Flower (which is still ongoing) is not a clinical negligence claim, but, rather, a road traffic accident claim. There is a dispute in the case as to the extent to which the Claimant suffered brain injury because of the road traffic accident and, during the course of the litigation, she has been seen by several experts instructed on behalf of the Defendant. She was advised by her solicitor to record her examinations by those experts. She obtained the agreement of some of the experts to do the recordings, but in relation to two of the expert appointments her recording was covert, and in relation to one of the appointments (with a neuropsychologist) she did not turn off the recording device for part of the appointment, despite having confirmed that she would do so. She claimed that she had tried to switch off the device, but that (unbeknownst to her) it had nonetheless kept recording.
The Master had to decide whether the Claimant’s recording of the examinations should be excluded from the evidence. The recording of the appointment with the expert neuropsychologist was particularly contentious. Apart from questions of courtesy and invasion of privacy, the expert was concerned that, if the recording of the testing was to be allowed into the evidence in the case, it would breach the copyright of the company that provided the test material and, furthermore, that it would undermine the efficacy of the tests in future (on the basis that, if the tests were to get into the public domain and were therefore to be made available to anyone who might have to undergo the testing in future, it would be more difficult to get genuine results from the tests).
The Master decided to allow all of the recordings, even those that were obtained covertly, to be included in the evidence. The rationale was that, although there were factors that weighed in favour of excluding the recordings, those factors were all outweighed by the relevance and probative value of the recordings. The most important considerations were that:
Notably, none of the appointments with the experts that were instructed on the Claimant’s behalf were recorded, and therefore the Defendant was not in a position to challenge the accuracy of those experts’ reports. However, the Master again nonetheless considered that this potential unfairness was outweighed by the relevance and probative value of the recordings.
Experts and practitioners need to be familiar with the detail of this decision, which might be interpreted by some as giving a “green light” to widespread recording of expert appointments. Experts may wish to enter into dialogue with Claimants from the outset as to whether they will agree to have the consultation recorded.
The implications of this decision could be very significant. It could affect disclosure (when should the recordings be disclosed, and how should this affect the timetable for production of experts’ reports?), it could affect costs (with experts and lawyers on all sides poring over recordings to try to find discrepancies) and it could easily affect the integrity of the expert examination process. It is perhaps with this concern in mind that the Master urged in his judgement that Claimant and Defendant representative organisations should come together to devise an agreed scheme for recording of examinations and the admission of such recordings into evidence. However, there must be real concern that, even with such a protocol in place, the scope for significant disputes and “satellite litigation” relating to this issue would be very substantial.
+44 (0) 117 918 2191
+44 (0)121 698 5249
+44 (0) 1962 705502
David Johnson, David Williams
Rachel Roberts-Jenkins, Stuart Keyden
Ciaran Claffey, Benjamin Newall
Simon Perkins, Jonathan Bonser, Bryony Steele
Matthew McGrath, Corinne Slingo, Tracey Longfield
Mark Ashley, Ruth Crackett, Stuart Wallace
Mark Ashley, Stuart Keyden
Khurram Shamsee, Guy Bredenkamp
Simon Perkins, Mark Ashley, Sophie Devlin, Georgia Thear-Graham
Heather Durston-Hillyer, Sean Doherty
Sebastien Kelly, Benjamin Newall
Misty Cawley, Sean Doherty, Philip Boyle
Robyn Reed, Sean Doherty
Max Slinger, Benjamin Newall