Is the Claimant’s Pain Report Genuine?
Most chronic pain reports are genuine, and the assessment should start there. Dr Richard Sawyer explains how a pain expert distinguishes exaggeration from malingering, which features warrant closer scrutiny, what base-rate research shows, and why any finding of dishonesty remains a matter for the court.
Chronic pain causation when pain becomes the main injury
When chronic pain outlasts tissue healing, the orthopaedic prognosis stops explaining the claim. Dr Tom Bendinger explains when a pain medicine expert should lead the evidence, why diagnosis and causation are separate exercises, and the counterfactual question that usually decides the opinion.
Chronic Pain After Trauma: Causal, Contributory, or Merely Temporal?
Chronic pain that follows an accident raises one central medico-legal question: what role did the accident actually play? Dr Tom Bendinger sets out how to distinguish a principal cause from a contributory factor, and both from mere coincidence.
Prognosis in Chronic Pain Claims: What Can a Pain Expert Really Say with Confidence?
What can a pain expert actually say about a claimant’s future recovery, and what should stay uncertain? Dr Tom Bendinger sets out the limits of defensible prognosis in chronic pain claims.
ICD-11 and Chronic Pain in Litigation: Why Classification Matters
ICD-11 chronic pain litigation gives lawyers and experts a clearer clinical framework for contested pain claims. This article explains why chronic primary pain, chronic secondary post-traumatic pain and CRPS should not be treated as interchangeable labels, and why classification can materially affect causation, prognosis, treatment, disability and the interpretation of inconsistency.
Surveillance, Fundamental Dishonesty, and the Limits of Expert Evidence
Surveillance evidence can be pivotal in personal injury litigation, particularly where function, credibility, and fundamental dishonesty are in issue. But footage rarely speaks for itself. This article explores what surveillance evidence can and cannot show, the risks of over-interpretation, and why expert opinion must remain careful, objective, and within remit.
Single Joint Experts in Civil Litigation: Efficiency, Risk, and Strategic Judgement
A Single Joint Expert can make litigation more efficient — but where one expert provides the only specialist opinion before the court, their conclusions may carry decisive weight. The real question is whether the issues in dispute are straightforward enough for that trade-off to be justified.