Case No. HQ12X01213

1.In this action Michelle Lay, the Claimant, whose date of birth is 15th July 1973 and who is therefore now 39 years old, seeks damages for injuries sustained in an accident in the course of her employment with the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Mental Health Partnership NHS Trust (the Defendant) on the 10th May 2004 (“the accident”) at the Lucille Van Geest Centre in Peterborough.2.In the accident, the Claimant slipped on the floor injuring her back and she says (though this is disputed by the Defendant) her neck. As a result of her injuries, the Claimant’s employment has been terminated on medical grounds and it is said that the Claimant has a substantial damages claim, valued in her Schedule of Loss at upwards of 1.792 million pounds, a valuation which is substantially disputed by the Defendant in its counter schedule. (See pages 53 and following in the bundle).3.The Claimant’s recovery has been complicated by the involvement of a consultant orthopaedic surgeon, Mr Shair in that she had surgery to her spine in 2005 (lumbar) and in 2006 (cervical) whilst under his care. The experts instructed by the Claimant and the Defendant are agreed that Mr Shair’s involvement has made the Claimant’s condition worse.4.The Defendant has admitted breach of duty in that the floor was in an unsafe condition and the Defendant also accepts that as a result of the accident the Claimant sustained an injury to her coccyx and her lumbar spine but not to her neck. In this regard the Defendant, as it is perfectly entitled to do, has put the Claimant to strict proof as to the cause, nature and extent of any injuries. As a result, therefore, the Claimant has to establish on the balance of probabilities that she suffered an injury to her neck in the index accident. If she can do that, however, the Defendant goes on to assert that the symptoms were relatively minor, that they aggravated the Claimant’s pre-existing constitutional condition and that the period of aggravation was limited to no more than 14 months and that thereafter any continuing symptoms reported by the Claimant were unrelated to the accident. 5.In July 2009 the Defendant commenced third-party proceedings against Mr Shair alleging negligence in connection with the surgery which he undertook on the Claimant both in respect of the lumbar and cervical spine.6.The action has a complex procedural history which has included stays of proceedings and issues have arisen as to the nature and extent of admissions of liability and causation. Those matters do not however concern me since by an Order (bundle, page 135 at 136) dated 4th October 2012, made by consent, Master Cook directed that there by a split trial and that the trial be limited to certain issues previously identified by HHJ Plumstead on 5th March 2012 (paragraph 3) (bundle, page 128 at 129) which were to be tried as a preliminary issue. These issues are:i)Did the Claimant damage her neck in the accident on 10th May 2004?ii)If she did damage her neck, is that damage causally connected with the symptoms subsequently related by her and if so, to what extent?iii)If the Claimant had not damaged her neck in the accident then the what would have been her prognosis?7.With that brief introduction I turn now to the three issues with which this trial has been concerned and record that I have heard evidence from the Claimant herself and from two experts, Mr Kirkpatrick a consultant neurosurgeon instructed by the Claimant. Whose reports are dated 26th July 2007 ( page 166) 14th August 2008 ( page 202) 22nd June 2010 ( page 208) 7th December 2011 ( page 212) 28th March 2012 ( page 219) and 28th December 2012 ( page 246) and Mr Marks a consultant orthopaedic spinal surgeon whose reports are dated 15th November 2007 ( page 178) and 5th April 2012 ( page 224.) In addition the two experts have produced two joint reports dated respectively 9th March 2008 ( page 199) and January 2013 ( page 258(1)