From Manchester to London and now down to Truro, judges have unanimously decided over the last year that medical agencies must disclose what the reporting expert was paid.
All these cases involved the biggest provider, Premex. The company assumes responsibility for arranging medical evidence upon instruction, easing the load for instructing solicitors. It is widely claimed that Premex accomplishes this at a lower cost than a law firm. Not highlighted in any of the judgements I have reviewed is the fact that it also alleviates the cash flow burden on solicitors, as it fronts the cost of each report immediately. It could be years before this outlay is recouped from the paying party.
Last year, HHJ Nigel Bird in Northampton General Hospital NHS Trust v Hoskin ordered the largest medical reporting agency in the country to provide a breakdown of two invoices it had issued. Each invoice was for the services of a medical expert, yet the total billed obscured the amount payable to the doctor. The judge asserted that the paying party was entitled to view how the fees were split between doctor and agency to assess the proportionality of the agency’s charges. He issued a stringent order that unless the medical invoices were disclosed within 14 days, both claims would be assessed at nil. Permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal was granted but later withdrawn early this year.
HHJ Saggerson in Aminu-Edu v Esure Insurance Company Limited, a Central London County Court judgement delivered on 8th March, adopted an identical stance concerning the breakdown of costs. Despite self-deprecatingly referring to himself as “a judicial bonehead” at paragraph 21, he issued a detailed 62-paragraph decision, mincing no words throughout.
For him, transparency was pivotal. He mentioned a “micro-industry of unknown and unknowable commissions, referral or arrangement fees,” which meant that litigation was being pursued “in the interests of an economic ecology far removed from the interests of justice or the protagonists.” He noted, as an example, “the racket that is claims for ‘Hire Charges,'” which seemingly only benefited lawyers and insurance companies—and curiously, no mention was made of the hire providers.
At paragraph 18, he stated, “It is not unreasonable for a paying party—even an insurance company—to understand what it is paying for and to whom.” The fee in question was £2,916 for a straightforward pain management report which “cannot have taken long to prepare,” in a case that settled for £40,000. Without a cost breakdown, the Judge awarded £750 plus VAT.
In Parsons v Stevens, a decision by a District Judge in Truro made public on May 14th, a breakdown was ordered. If not provided, the claimed fee of £5,880 (plus VAT) would be reduced to £1,500 (plus VAT).
The Senior Costs Judge in CXR v Dome Holdings, published on the esteemed Civil Litigation Brief website on May 23rd, ruled that a breakdown must be provided.
Honestly, I don’t foresee a higher court contradicting Judge Gordon-Saker.
