By: 24 April 2015
Horwich Farrelly investigation leads to dishonest medico-legal expert being struck off

A doctor who falsified his experience under oath when providing medical evidence for injury claims has been stuck off after his credentials were challenged by Horwich Farrelly.

The defendant law firm says that it had developed growing concerns about the medico-legal practice of Titus Odedun over a number of years. This eventually led to it submitting a dossier of evidence to the General Medical Council which resulted in Odedun being taken off the Medical Register.

Odedun was found to have deliberately misrepresented his medical experience and membership of professional bodies under oath and in the medical reports he supplied to support personal injury claims. The Medical Pracititioners Tribunal Service then found that Odedun’s conduct was fundamentally incompatible with being a doctor.

The Tribunal said that Odedun had “demonstrated a reckless disregard of [good medical practice] principles” and that he had “put his own interests before those of the profession”. It concluded that his conduct amounted to “persistent dishonesty and an abuse of his position as an expert”.

Horwich Farrelly said that it considered the verdict to be an important victory in the fight against fraud.

“Medical evidence forms the foundation of any personal injury case, and the expert’s integrity is crucial in assessing the authenticity of these claims,” said Ronan McCann, fraud partner at Horwich Farrelly.

“If the medical expert is dishonest in any way how can the courts rely on any of their opinions?”

McCann also praised Horwich Farrelly associate Michael Rimmer, who led the investigation into Odedun. He said that Rimmer’s work had saved insurers, and honest policyholders huge amounts of money as Odedun was a persistent supplier of dishonest statements to support large amounts of personal injury claims.

“Mr Odedun alluded to some sort of malicious intent by Horwich Farrelly against him,” added McCann. “I am pleased that this suggestion was rejected by the MPTS. We believe this case reinforces the need for a truly independent organisation like MedCo to better regulate medico-legal experts and deter those aiming to cheat the system.

“We will investigate dishonest activity irrespective of whether it is by those pursuing compensation or the professionals who support their claims.”