Liam Moloney of Moloney & Co. Solicitors Naas has successfully completed a Diploma in Civil Litigation from the Law Society of Ireland and is now the first Solicitor in County Kildare to hold this prestigious award.

The Diploma in Civil Litigation Course,  which took 9 months to complete was an intensive course providing Solicitors with extensive updates on all areas of Litigation

Moloney & Co. Solicitors practises exclusively in the areas of Employment Law, Personal Injury and Medical Negligence claims.  Liam already holds Diplomas in Employment Law and in Commercial Litigation and this most recent specialist qualification in civil litigation will further enhance his expertise in dealing with personal injury and medical negligence claims.

“This additional qualification has provided me with greater expertise in advising clients in the Kildare area who may have been injured, including clients who may have been injured through medical errors. It is essential to be able to advise my clients of the rapidly changing legal environment which can only be achieved by having specialist knowledge” says Liam.

Compensation of €200m was paid out over the course of 2009 to 8,645 personal injury claimants, according to preliminary year-end data from InjuriesBoard.ie the independent government body that oversees the payouts for such injuries.

The average compensation for a personal injury during 2009 was €23,163, down 6pc on the 2008 average, but up 5pc on 2007, InjuriesBoard.ie said.

Nearly three quarters of awards (72 pc) were for injuries from road traffic accidents, while the remainder was split between workplace (11 pc) and public space (17 pc) accidents.

The average workplace award was €23,000 in 2009, almost 48pc high than motor awards, which averaged €21,000

The High Court has awarded a 71 year old lady Sheila Colburn the sum of €60,000.00 for personal injuries sustained by her when she was walking along a footpath at Castle Street, Sligo on the 29^th of June 2006 when she was caused to trip and fall.

When the Judgement delivered by Mr Justice O’Neill on the 6^th of November 2009 in the High Court he held Sligo Borough Council responsible for the injuries sustained by Ms Colburn in the fall.  The Judge said he was satisfied that the Plaintiff was caused to trip and fall as a result of a depression in a drainage channel in the footpath at the location in question.  He held that the depression was caused by a piece of concrete which was missing from the edge of the drainage channel and this had been caused by a disturbance by a variety of excavations in the pathway beside the channel in question.

The indent or depression was not the result of normal wear or tear from the usage of the footpath and therefore the Defendants could not rely on the legal exemption provided to Local Authorities called non-feasance.  The Judge held that the depression created a trip hazard.

Ms Colburn had a somewhat chequered medical history and the Defendant argued that what had occurred after her accident was merely a continuation of that which went before.  The Judge did not accept that argument and found that her injuries which included an undisplaced fracture of the head of the radius at the elbow on the left hand side was caused as a result of the fall.  She also suffered injuries to her neck and back.  He found that the injuries caused a great disruption to her life and that she suffered considerable pain.  General damages were set to €60,000.00 plus special damages of €2,190.00

Cork woman Anne Hegarty has been awarded €35,000 compensation for injuries sustained by her when she was a passenger on a CIE bus travelling near Fermoy, Co Cork on the 29th of November 2003 when it was caused to stop suddenly.

Ms Hegarty was pitched forward in her seat, thrown backwards and sustained injuries as a result. Ms Hegarty attended her GP within a few days of the accident complaining of pain in the left side of her neck and headaches.

She issued proceedings against the Defendants CIE and Thomas Roche claiming damages for negligence.

Over the next two years she was seen by a number of medical specialists and by doctors engaged by the Defendants.  She subsequently developed problems with her lower back.  An MRI scan was carried out on her cervical spine which showed degenerative changes.  It was her doctor’s opinion that the accident had exacerbated a preexisting degenerative condition.

Dr F. Matthews a General Practitioner engaged by the Defendants gave evidence as having examined Ms Hegarty on three occasions.  On two of these occasions when the Plaintiff was on the examining couch she was able to raise both legs to 80 degrees.  This he said demonstrated she had little or no back pain as she had done indirectly what she claimed she could not do directly because of the pain.

Furthermore when Ms Hegarty was lying on his examination couch she was able to get herself to a seated position and could touch her ankles with her hands.  He said this was a movement she had claimed she could not do because of pain.  It was his firm opinion that she was exaggerating her symptoms.

Armed with this opinion  when the matter came on for trial before the High Court the Defendants relied on the provisions of Section 26 of the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004 which states that “if a Plaintiff in a Personal Injuries Action gives evidence that-

1. is false or misleading in any material respect and
2. He or she knows it to be false or misleading, the Court shall, dismiss this Plaintiffs action unless, for reasons the Court shall state in its decision, the dismissal of the action will result in an injustice being done.

in seeking to have Ms Hegarty’s claim dismissed.

Judge Dan Herbert agreed with Dr Matthews that the Plaintiff had seriously exaggerated her physical symptoms.  He said that this was a very serious matter as it presented an image of her symptoms getting progressively worse with the passage of time.

However, crucially, he said that he had not formed the opinion that the Plaintiff in the course of her own evidence was exaggerating her symptoms or seeking to mislead the Court.

The Judge concluded that Ms Hegarty had become stressed and anxious because of the ongoing problems with her neck and the fact that she had gained weight and had become unduly worried about the pending litigation.  He found that these factors caused her emotional and adjustment difficulties which may have led her to exaggerate her symptoms to the medical professionals.

He found that she had not breached the provisions of Section 26 of the Civil Liability Act and as a result he refused to dismiss her claim and awarded her the sum of €35,000 general damages.

This decision follows on a number of High Court decisions where applications to  dismiss  Plaintiffs claims under Section 26 have failed.

Insurance Companies are now instructing their doctors to look for any evidence of exaggeration either through their physical examination of a patient or through oral accounts given to them. They then use this information either as a bargaining tool to reduce compensation payments or to damage the  plaintiffs credibility at the Trial.

If someone sustains an injury in an accident they would be well advised to keep a diary listing all complaints made to their own doctors, Defendants doctors and any other specialists attended by them.

In the personal injuries case of  Maggie Yung V MIBI the High Court has increased the “cap” on general damages.

This case related to a twenty year old Chinese national who suffered serious injuries when travelling as a rear seat passenger in a car involved in a road traffic accident.  The injuries included a compression fracture of her first lumbar vertebra and a collapse of the superior end plate kyphosis.  She also developed very significant post traumatic stress disorder.

Unfortunately Miss Yang fell through the “gaps” in the Health System and only got proper medical treatment in the year 2003/2004.  At that stage her surgeon advised her that she should undertake surgery to remove a hump in her back which caused her back to bend forward.  This would reduce her pain but also carried with it a risk of paraplegia.  While the risk being advised to her was small she had developed at that stage a very significant phobia and was not willing to undergo the operation.

Judge Quirke in the High Court found that she had devastating physical injuries and also had a significantly depressed mood disorder.  The Plaintiff was not in a mental position to make a determination that she should have the operation.

In regard to the cap on general damages the Judge confirmed that the court was required to place the Plaintiff in so far as money can do so, in the position she would have occupied had she not suffered her injuries.  The Judge awarded her general damages of €325,000.00 together with a very significant sum for loss of earnings and cost of future care making a total award of €1,826,380.12.

Dealing specifically with the issue of the cap on general damages the Judge said where an award is largely an award of general damages for the consequence of catastrophic injuries there will be no “cap” placed upon the general damages awarded.  Each case will depend upon its own facts so that:-

1. An award for general damages could, if the evidence so warranted,  make provision for factors such as future loss of employment opportunity or future expenses which cannot be precisely calculated or proved at the time of the trial.
2. Life expectancy may be a factor to be taken into account and
3. c. A modest or no award for general damages may be made where general damages will have little or no compensatory consequences for the injured person