Expert accreditation scheme for whiplash claims “by end of year”, MoJ says

John Spencer

Spencer: “Pre-medical offers should be banned”

The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has promised to roll out “a robust accreditation process” for medical experts in whiplash cases by the end of the year.

Justice minister Lord Faulks said that banning law firms from owning medical reporting agencies would also be included in this “second tranche” of reforms.

In a letter attached to this week’s announcement by justice secretary Chris Grayling on new court rules for whiplash cases from 1 October, Lord Faulks said: “The MoJ will work with industry experts to support the development of a new system through which medical reports will be obtained using a system of random allocation.

“Linked to this will be a new accreditation (and re-accreditation) scheme for experts, which will include a peer review and auditing element to identify sub-standard reporting.

“Accredited experts who do not meet appropriate standards will face sanctions such as the removal of, or restrictions applied to, their accreditation.”

Lord Faulks said it was the ministry’s “strong view” that the accreditation scheme should be “owned and established” by the industry.

He said that “those operating in the personal injury sector” should provide “a suitable initial funding solution” until the scheme became self-financing through accreditation fees.

At the same time, the justice minister said the ministry would “consider the best way” to ensure that neither party in the litigation “had a financial interest in an intermediary through which a medical report is obtained”.

He said these plans would be developed “in tandem” with the accreditation scheme.

The letter emphasised that a secondary medical report, if justified, should only be commissioned on the recommendation of the expert completing the initial report. Fixed costs will apply where secondary reports are provided by orthopaedic consultants (£420), accident and emergency consultants (£360) and GPs/physiotherapists (£180).

The Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL) expressed its disappointment that both the justice secretary and the justice minister shied away from a ban on ‘pre-med’ offers.

Lord Faulks said only that the rules were being amended to “strongly discourage this practice” and the MoJ intended to “continue to work with the industry on further ways to tackle this issue effectively”.

John Spencer, president of APIL, said pre-med offers only ever provided a “short-term cost benefit”, while opening the door to “longer term problems of fraud”.

Mr Spencer went on: “Thorough medical evidence should identify fraudulent and exaggerated claims and ensure that genuine people are given the correct amount of compensation for their injuries.

“Pre-medical offers should be banned and the government has missed an opportunity to ensure all fraudulent claims are challenged.”



    Readers Comments

  • Peter says:

    I think that the point on pre-medical offers being banned requires some explanation from Mr Spencer. I cannot see anything in the current or future rules that will lead to a thorough examination. Old, young, pre-existing all seem to receive the same treatment and prognosis with very little clinical checks. I cannot see why intervening is not cost effective. I also question on what basis not making these offers will help the fight against fraud. If a claim can be substantiated by evidence and the fraudster – with a tendency to also exaggerate their injuries will receive more, as would their solicitor on a DBA. Keeping the right to compromise settlement helps to keep down costs and stakeholders should reply upon their own techniques to challenge fraud as I have seen no evidence that first reports assist in any way.

  • Michael O'Donnel says:

    I struggle to understand why people think that medical examinations will detect fraud. Most doctors find it extremely difficult to challenge people’s statements about their health and will also usually default to the position which is least likely to lead to a complaint.

    Whiplash and other similar problems have very variable symptomatology which has very little correlation with underlying pathology. I don’t expect that accreditation will improve the quality of medical advice in these cases.

  • A Brown says:

    I suggest that an annonymous service is established where experts can leave the details of fraudulent claims or solicitors / medical agencies that they come across. In current circumstances, experts have no means of reporting such issues and if they refuse to follow certain request from the agency / solicitor, they simply loose work and the money they are owed. If there is an anonymous system where they can leave the details of any such frauds, it will, in my opinion, reduce the number of fraudulent cases significantly.

Leave a Comment

By clicking Submit you consent to Legal Futures storing your personal data and confirm you have read our Privacy Policy and section 5 of our Terms & Conditions which deals with user-generated content. All comments will be moderated before posting.

Required fields are marked *
Email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.