Creditibility & Reliability of Evidence

In compensation claims, evidence is required to support the Plaintiff's allegations in relation to the severity of their injuries, the impact on their life, the pain and suffering they claim to endure, the impact on their ability work and medical treatment they require. 

A Court demands evidence that is consistent and reflects the true nature of the injuries. Further, the assessment of damages for personal injuries also depends on a Plaintiff’s honest reporting of, among other things, that person’s symptoms and the impact of these symptoms on their life, including the capacity to work, etc.

A failure to provide a consistent account of evidence allows the Respondent and the Court to question your credibility, which will significantly reduce an amount of compensation. 

At worst, a Plaintiff’s dishonesty can result in allegations of being misleading or fraudulent, as well as potential criminal prosecution and serious penalties.

Baldock-Davis v Popham & Anor [2023] QSC 24

On 23 February 2023, the Qld Supreme Court handed down a decision which was hugely impacted by the Plaintiff’s failure to provide credible and reliable evidence. The Plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident, where Suncorp, the insurer for the at-fault driver admitted liability and the matter proceeded on a quantum-only basis.

The Plaintiff claimed she continued to suffer from back and neck pain as a result of the accident, which resulted in, among other things, ongoing back and neck pain, loss of work and ongoing medical expenses. Due to the failure by the Plaintiff to provide an honest and consistent account of her injuries and the impact on her life, the Court determined that she had overstated or exaggerated her symptoms on a number of occasions.

In addition, the Plaintiff failed to provide any reasonable excuses for the inconsistencies.

As such, although the Plaintiff was successful, her evidence could not be relied upon to assess her damages as per usual, and her award of damages was reduced significantly.

Severity of Symptoms

The Court found several instances where the instructions the Plaintiff provided to medical specialists, medico-legal experts and experts were not consistent with other medical records. On several occasions, the Plaintiff reported to medico-legal experts that her symptoms were of greater intensity, experienced on a more frequent basis, than that recorded in GP or physiotherapist clinical notes.

The Court also noted that some symptoms reported to medico-legal experts, such as headaches were not recorded at all, prior to being assessed by the medico-legal experts, despite having many months and years of treatment for her injuries.

When presented with the inconsistent information, the medico-legal experts accepted that their findings would have been of a lesser degree in relation to the severity of the symptoms.

Work Capacity

The Court found that the Plaintiff also failed to provide consistent evidence in relation to her earning capacity, ability to work and the impact of her injuries and symptoms.

The evidence from the Plaintiff’s pay records differed significantly from her evidence that she needed to reduce her weekly working hours due to her injuries, which had been reported to medico-legal experts.

Again, when presented with this evidence, the medico-legal experts accepted that it was against the Plaintiff’s suggestion that she was struggling to work due to her symptoms, when she was originally assessed by them.

Social Life & Social Media

The Court also found that the Plaintiff’s evidence in relation to her return to her social life and specifically, competitive soccer following the motor vehicle accident was inconsistent.

The Plaintiff gave evidence that she played division 2, which left her in pain after games and training sessions. Suncorp presented evidence that the soccer season was actually longer than the Plaintiff claimed.  Suncorp also presented photographic and video evidence of the Plaintiff playing division 1 soccer. The footage also showed the Plaintiff had little difficulty or restriction playing competitive soccer.

Finally, Suncorp provided evidence from Facebook, showing the Plaintiff participating in various social events, travelling, drinking and dancing with little difficulty or restriction, as it was suggested by the Plaintiff.

When presented with the evidence, the medico-legal experts again accepted that it demonstrated the Plaintiff’s symptoms were not as severe as originally reported to them by the Plaintiff.

Again, the Plaintiff was unable to provide any reasonable excuse in response to this evidence.

Decision

Although the Plaintiff was entitled to damages for the motor vehicle accident and her subsequent injuries, the credibility and reliability issues with her evidence meant that the Court did not accept that her injuries were as serious as she claimed.

As such, the Court significantly reduced the award of damages to $40,635.44. The Plaintiff was seeking over $750,000.00 in compensation plus legal costs. The Court ordered the Defendant to pay the Plaintiff’s costs up until 23 March 2021. The Court also ordered the Plaintiff to pay the Defendant’s costs from 21 March 2021 onwards, to be assessed or agreed upon.

Importance of Honesty and Consistency

This decision serves as a reminder that honesty and consistency is of the utmost importance in establishing a strong claim for compensation. If there are any changes as to the Plaintiff’s injuries, symptoms or evidence, it will likely require an explanation as to why.

If the Plaintiff’s evidence changes, without reasonable excuse, it presents opportunities for Defendants and the Court to question the legitimacy of the entire claim.

Even if your claim is legitimate, your evidence must present as consistent so the Respondent and the Court can have confidence that your account of these injuries, difficulties, symptoms and loss are as bad as you describe.

How we can help

The Compensation Team at Wallace & Wallace Lawyers are experienced in all aspects of personal injury legislation. We take every step to ensure your evidence is accurate, consistent and a true reflection of your loss.

We take careful consideration of your evidence and instructions to identify any potential inconsistencies or weaknesses. We then prepare options, explanations or strategies to strengthen your evidence and minimise any opportunity to question your claim’s legitimacy.

If you are dissatisfied with your current representation, our experts can also offer a second opinion. We have taken over many claims for compensation when the injured person has become unhappy with their previous lawyer’s progress. We also take steps to negotiate fees with the previous lawyers to ensure the injured person only pays for the amount of work actually performed.

If you, or someone you know has been injured at work, or you want a second opinion, call us now on (07) 4963 2000 or contact us via our online contact form for practical legal advice on how you should proceed.