Hodges v Hicks[2025] WADC 8
Key Takeaways:
- A medical expert's opinion remains valid even if the facts it is based on do not perfectly match those proven at trial, as long as they are sufficiently similar.
- Experts should ensure they have a comprehensive understanding of the plaintiff's medical history before forming their opinions, as discrepancies can be challenged in court.
- If a party argues that an expert's conclusions are flawed due to inaccurate histories, the credibility of the opinion may be questioned, though the argument must be maintained throughout the case.
In this case, the Court held that a medical expert's opinion remains valid even if the facts or assumptions relied on do not exactly match those proven at trial, provided they are sufficiently similar to provide meaningful insight.
Background
The defendant rear-ended the plaintiff's stalled car on 2 October 2015 due to inattention. She admitted negligence, and the case concerns the assessment damages payable to the plaintiff. There was a dispute over the extent of the physical injuries suffered by the plaintiff in the car accident and as to the plaintiff's earning capacity.
The plaintiff claimed she suffered injuries to her knee, neck, shoulder, and back, with the accident accelerating osteoarthritis in her right knee. The defendant admitted minor injuries to the back and neck but argues the plaintiff's knee was already arthritic and that pre-existing conditions contributed to any harm.
Despite continuing full-time work, the plaintiff claimed her injuries reduced her earning capacity, preventing her from doing FIFO mining work or running her CPR training business. The defendant denies any significant economic loss.
Expert evidence
Various medical expert reports were submitted during the trial, and several experts were called to testify about the cause of the plaintiff's knee injury. The defendant argued that the plaintiff provided inaccurate medical histories to the experts, rendering their opinions flawed and of minimal weight.
The Court found that some of the plaintiff's expert witnesses noted that she attempted to correct statements in their reports that she disagreed with, or provided unsolicited information she deemed relevant, despite being instructed to communicate through her solicitors rather than directly with the experts. [at 237] However, since the defendant did not argue in closing that the expert opinions should be given negligible weight due to inaccuracies in the plaintiff's medical histories, it was unclear whether that argument was maintained. To the extent that it was, it was not accepted by the Court. [at 245]
The Court ruled that a doctor's opinion does not need to be based on facts that exactly match those proven at trial. It is sufficient if the proven facts are "sufficiently like" those assumed in the opinion for it to remain valuable. [at 246] In this case, by the time the medical experts testified, they were fully informed of the plaintiff's medical history. The Court was thus satisfied that the proven facts and assumptions were adequate to give their opinions value. [at 247]
The Court concluded that the accident did not cause the plaintiff's osteoarthritis, as all medical experts agreed she had the condition beforehand. [at 343]
Ultimately, the Court held that the plaintiff was not entitled to a significant award for future loss of earning capacity for the following reasons: [a] the injury did not make her uncompetitive for flyin/flyout (FIFO) work or incapable of it; [b] while the accident accelerated her osteoarthritis, her knee would likely have become symptomatic regardless; [c] evidence suggests she may not have stayed in FIFO long-term; and [d] being qualified for a senior role does not mean she would have obtained one. A modest award of $10,000, inclusive of superannuation, was considered appropriate to account for any future impact on her earning capacity. [at 574-580]
Read the full decision here.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.