My partner is a carer. She has been sent to work for a lady who wasn't equipped with the correct device to keep her upright. She fell on my partner and my partner suffered a back injury leading to incontinence, pain and time off work.

We took the case with xxx LLP, who wrote a letter to the employer and got a response, offering 4000 pounds as final settlement.

xxx advised us to reject that offer, saying, over the phone, that we can always fall back on the 4000, but they believe we can get much more.

Since then, my partner has been to Royal Berkshire Hospital, where the doctor said he doesn't see any injury and any pain she might have is a result of earlier injury. Her incontinence might be an infection (totally rubbish).

Now it feels like the case might fall through, as the doctors do not want to confirm her injury and we see the 4000 pounds as a better-than-nothing solution.

However, when we WROTE to xxx, they said the offer is off the table and we can't fall back to those 4000 pounds.

1. She will be seeing a doctor from xxx privately to assess her but I reckon a judge might be more interested in an NHS doctor rather than a doctor from an interested party?

2. What can we do in regards to xxx making us think we could get at least 4000 pounds and now they are implying we can come out empty handed?

3. Any other advice regarding the situation in general will be appreciated

I will just add that the reason my partner was injured is that she grabbed the falling lady and saved her from rolling down the stairs.

And that my partner is truly injured. It took her 2 weeks to admit that she's incontinent because of the shame.

what does your contract with xxx say? Are you able to withdraw from it and what happens if you do?

I've removed the name of the law firm from previous posts as CAG doesn't advertise.

HB

Sorry, I was actually encouraged, on a different issue, to actually name the companies I am dealing with. I will make sure to avoid name dropping unless instructed so.

We can withdraw from the case at any time without fees.

ok. So, currently no medical evidence

What training did she get?

What risk assessment was in place?

Did she get sick pay?

Is she back at work?

My partner is a carer. She has been sent to work for a lady who wasn't equipped with the correct device to keep her upright. She fell on my partner and my partner suffered a back injury leading to incontinence, pain and time off work.

 

We took the case with xxx LLP, who wrote a letter to the employer and got a response, offering 4000 pounds as final settlement.

xxx advised us to reject that offer, saying, over the phone, that we can always fall back on the 4000, but they believe we can get much more.

 

Since then, my partner has been to Royal Berkshire Hospital, where the doctor said he doesn't see any injury and any pain she might have is a result of earlier injury. Her incontinence might be an infection (totally rubbish).

 

Now it feels like the case might fall through, as the doctors do not want to confirm her injury and we see the 4000 pounds as a better-than-nothing solution.

However, when we WROTE to xxx, they said the offer is off the table and we can't fall back to those 4000 pounds.

 

1. She will be seeing a doctor from xxx privately to assess her but I reckon a judge might be more interested in an NHS doctor rather than a doctor from an interested party?

 

2. What can we do in regards to xxx making us think we could get at least 4000 pounds and now they are implying we can come out empty handed?

 

3. Any other advice regarding the situation in general will be appreciated

 

I will just add that the reason my partner was injured is that she grabbed the falling lady and saved her from rolling down the stairs.

And that my partner is truly injured. It took her 2 weeks to admit that she's incontinent because of the shame.

1) The Court will place more weight on a medico-legal report from a medical expert instructed by your solicitor.

2) Was the off made by way of "Part 36"? As for the advice given, we'd need to see the advice you got from your solicitor.

3) Call your solicitor and ask them everything you've asked here. They're you're solicitors and I imagine you're paying them at least 25% of your settlement so use the qualified legal professionals you're paying for.

1. She's a senior carer with all the qualifications and certificates. She is trained to operate all moving and handling equipment

2. She has actually proactively assessed the risk and informed: the care company, occupation therapist, the head nurse and the family - in writing, that the woman is not equipped to walk on her own in the current setting. She has a written statement from other carers who said they will not work for that lady because she's at risk of collapsing any moment.

I believe there may be some form of agreement from the official people (OT, care company...) that the equipment is not suitable but I am not sure of this documentation.

3. She did not receive statutory sick pay. As a matter of fact, the care company were very quick to deduct 200 pounds for uniform, which we got back by threatening with ACAS

4. She is only able to do light work such as baby-sitting. And she does that 2 days per week.

2. She has actually proactively assessed the risk and informed: the care company, occupation therapist, the head nurse and the family - in writing, that the woman is not equipped to walk on her own in the current setting. She has a written statement from other carers who said they will not work for that lady because she's at risk of collapsing any moment.

I believe there may be some form of agreement from the official people (OT, care company...) that the equipment is not suitable but I am not sure of this documentation.

Your difficuty is that despite being fully trained, and having undertaken the risk assessment herself, she has then proceeded to do the work. This puts her on very shaky ground.

I see your point. I hope our legal help can get this covered somehow.

Speaking of that legal help, any way to get some traction regarding their earlier verbal promise that we can get those 4000 guaranteed, or more?

I see your point. I hope our legal help can get this covered somehow.

 

Speaking of that legal help, any way to get some traction regarding their earlier verbal promise that we can get those 4000 guaranteed, or more?

It was a verbal promise, did you record it?

HB

Nope.

I see your point. I hope our legal help can get this covered somehow.

 

Speaking of that legal help, any way to get some traction regarding their earlier verbal promise that we can get those 4000 guaranteed, or more?

I very much doubt it was a "promise."

Did you not get anything in writing from your solicitor?

ok maybe they didn't say "we promise" but, while my partner isn't seasoned in legal practice, I believe that she understood correctly some form of explicit verbal assurance that the "4000" offer is live, not off the table.

We got a lot in writing but not that.

That's the thing about offers, they can be time limited or withdrawn.

You really need to discuss this with your solicitor.

I can't see a strong case; so I woud probably go along with the solicitor's doctor, and see if they can make a case. I wouldn't count on much coming from it, though.

It was prob a offer to settle as cheaper than cost of defending or involving insurance.

They prob feel they are not at fault but was cheapest way out.

Now, after refusing offer, they have likely informed insurance company and insurance company will fight it now.

It was prob a offer to settle as cheaper than cost of defending or involving insurance.

They prob feel they are not at fault but was cheapest way out.

Now, after refusing offer, they have likely informed insurance company and insurance company will fight it now.

I would agree. They may come back at a later stage, but the offer could go up - or down. There is never any way of predicting this.

On the issue of the NHS doctor - all medical opinion would receive equal weight in a court, assuming it came from someone qualified to deliver it. But what you would not be able to do, if the solicitor now got their own medical advice, would be to hide the opinion of the NHS medical practitioners. That would always form part of the evidence; and, in fact, depending on circumstances, the opposing side may already have copies, as litigation requires disclosure of such things.

But on a very basic point, an offer is an offer. Not a guarantee. And the lawyers advice is advice - you make the decision. The chances of demonstrating that this is the fault of the lawyer is negligible- and that is assuming that you had evidence, and that it was ironclad. I'd lay bets that it wasn't the latter, as lawyers seldom speak in certainties. They'll have said something conditional in the conversation - you just won't have heard it that way.

Hi again, there's some progress: The other doctor that the lawyers told her to visit actually agrees that the injury is significant for a claim.

The lawyers still said it's still not favourable, if we have a 50/50 distribution about this.

The lawyers have given us some advice that I find weird and I think only you could help me understand (lawyers did not elaborate for us).

Basically, they said that we should now make a "interim claim" of 1000 pounds from the insurer. This means we claim 1000 pounds now but reserve the right to claim more once we get more evidence.

My question is (I am trying to understand the motives of each party): why would an insurer agree to an interim claim? If the the insured party is in the right, then the insurer is not motivated to accept any claim. If the insurer feels the claim has a chance, they would look to settle.

But why would anyone agree to pay some money now, without settling the claim finally?

Perhaps paying an interim claim makes the insured party appear more favourably at the court?

Can you just confirm if liability for the accident is admitted by the other side's insurer?

The interim payment request could for for a couple of reasons. Either the Claimant needs further medical investigations or examinations etc and the money is to tide them over for now.

Or it's a tactic from the solicitors to get more costs if the interim payment is contested or paid late.

yes, the insurer admitted liability.

I will re-check with the solicitors about their costs. I am pretty sure we agreed on a fixed percentage (25%) of the total settlement.

yes, the insurer admitted liability.

I will re-check with the solicitors about their costs. I am pretty sure we agreed on a fixed percentage (25%) of the total settlement.

No, I meant the costs they get from the other side. Not the costs from their client.

It's not an unusual course of action to be honest. Pretty standard.

This should open the topic

Why?