By: 13 October 2023
Delays in compensation for injured individuals: APIL’s perspective

The legal community is raising concerns about government proposals to change the way that medical reports are sourced and disclosed in road traffic injury claims. They judge that this will be a backwards step for the process and impede clients’ experience when looking to obtain compensation for their injuries.  

The Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL) has responded to a Ministry of Justice consultation which looked to revise the medical reporting process for road traffic accident claims. APIL states that proposals made in the consultation would lead to delays for injured individuals who require compensation.  

The Ministry of Justice suggests that medical reports should be uploaded to the Official Injury Claims (OIC) portal as soon as they have been completed by a medical expert.  

APIL secretary Brett Dixon states, “Forcing premature disclosure of medical reports by getting experts to upload them to OIC without due consideration and fact checking is a dangerous proposal which would ultimately erode injured people’s rights,” 

“It also causes the risk of significant satellite litigation as it does not take account of the privileged nature of the report in this context.” 

“A claimant is entitled to take time to fact-check or even consider whether they want to rely on a report. They may also want to wait for a prognosis or finalise other evidence,”  

APIL is also opposed to the concept that claimants must wait for the at-fault compensator to confirm decisions on liability and causation before they can instruct a medical expert. 

Mr Dixon went on to say, “Waiting for confirmation would lead to significant delays. The key issue is not when the instruction occurs but when the expert’s report is actually obtained. It is counterproductive to aim to address delays in the OIC by proposing something that could further impede the process,”  

“The proposals fail to acknowledge that the vast majority of OIC users have legal representation. For the process to work it must reflect the needs of the majority,”  

“The majority of users in this system are represented and changing the process to reflect the minority unrepresented journey is not wise. Changing this will be to the detriment of injured people who must be at the centre of any decisions,” he said. 

Image: © Monkey Business Images via Canva
Emma Cockings
Emma is a content editor for Claims Media. Emma is a experienced writer with a background in client-centric personal injury for a major firm. She has attended and reported on multiple brokerage events throughout her career.