About us

Instruction and case guide
‍Solicitors will often contact us to enquire whether their case is within the expertise of one of our experts. Here is a guide to the types of instructions we receive, but feel free to contact us further if you are still seeking an appropriate expert or have queries on whether we can assist you with a case.

Musculoskeletal Conditions
‍Our clinical experts provide invaluable support throughout the case.  We have expertise in both NHS and Private Practice and have Expert Witness validation.

1. Back pain
2. Post operative rehabilitation
3. Diagnosis and management - treatment pathway
4. Multiple trauma
5. Future needs
6. Post operative care
7. Injury rehabilitation
8. CES - Cauda Equina Syndrome
9. Delayed care
10. Spinal Injuries
11. Trauma & Orthopaedics (including brachial plexus injuries – adults and children)
12. Integrated Care Pathways
13. Arthroplasty (joint replacement) and lifetime management

Special interest and other conditions
‍The White House Medico Legal expert on Injection Therapy provides a skilled and logical assessment of the case.

• Paediatrics (Including Cerebral Palsy & Erbs palsy)
• Manual Handling
• Women's Health
• Nursing care and future needs.
• Injection Therapy
• Care reports

‍

Neurological Conditions
‍Our experienced neurological experts provide both claimant and defendant cases and are recognised as Neurological and Care experts.

• Head Injury / traumatic brain injury
• Poly trauma
• Neurological management - strokes, peripheral nerve injury
• Neurosurgery, Stroke & other neurological conditions
• Spinal Injuries and Spinal Cord Injury
• Care pathways and long term care needs
• Rehabilitation / hydrotherapy
• Amputee and rehabilitation
• Nerve injuries - neuropraxia
• Chronic pain management

‍

‍

‍

Our experts understand the legal test cases and their duties in providing expert evidence in cases of negligence reports
‍The legal test cases are summarised to show in principle that we have have understanding of the implications and whilst providing expert evidence. As Clinical Negligence Experts we understand our Duty of Care and the tests applied in determining breach of duty in clinical negligence cases with particular consideration to Bolam, Bolithero and Montgomery(England) and Hunter (Scotland).

Bolam Test
‍A test case, now commonly referred to as the Bolam standard, where a medical practitioner acts and provides acceptable practice in accordance with an average body of similar practitioners. The practitioner may have acted in accordance with an average body of medical opinion although other practitioners may adopt a different practice. A guide used when assessing the appropriate standard of reasonable care in negligence cases involving skilled professionals.

Bolithero Test
‍Bolitho narrows the scope of the Bolam test, stating that the court must be satisfied that the body of opinion relied upon has a logical basis. A further guide used when assessing the appropriate standard of reasonable care in negligence cases involving skilled professionals.

‍Hunter v Hanley Test
‍In order to establish liability in circumstances where deviation from normal practice is alleged, three facts have to be established:

1. It must be proved that there is a usual and normal practice;
2. It must be proved that the defender has not adopted that practice; and
3. Most importantly, it must be established that the course the professional had adopted is one which no professional person of ordinary skill would have taken if he/she had been acting with ordinary care.

The onus rests on a pursuer to establish these three facts, and without all three his case will fail. Like the Bolam test, Hunter was a medical negligence case whose principles in relation to the required standard of care have been extended to apply to other professions including consulting engineers.

Hunter v Hanley is the Scottish equivalent to Bolam.   It sets out a slightly different test applicable to  professional negligence cases under the law of Scotland

Montgomery Test
A medical professional whilst undertaking consent must provide information of known risks and to ensure patient understanding. Clinicians have a duty to take reasonable care to ensure that patients are aware of 'material risks' involved in a proposed treatment and of reasonable alternatives. Appropriate consent must be obtained at all times.

‍‍A practice of informed consent by medical professionals
Our experts are experienced in legal report writing and follow the above test cases where appropriate. We will always take advice from our instructing parties whilst we aim to provide a fair, transparent and accountable opinion.

We fully understand our responsibilities in undertaking instructions as experts in Civil Claims. As Clinical Negligence Experts we understand our Duty of Care and the tests applied in determining breach of duty in clinical negligence cases.
‍
All our reports are compliant with CPR35 along with PD35. To be effective in undertaking our responsibilities our clinicians whilst preparing evidence for civil proceedings and are familiar with the essential legal concepts that clinical expert witnesses must understand in providing a medicolegal report.

As experts we understand our responsibilities to the court and have legal training to ensure we comply and fully understand the Wolfe Reforms
Civil Procedure Rules

Part 35 of the Civil Procedure Rules governs the use of evidence from experts and assessors in civil proceedings.

Further guidance is provided in the associated Practice Direction 35 and in the ‘Guidance for the instruction of experts in civil claims’ published by the Civil Justice Council in August 2014 (see below). This guidance replaced the previous protocol on the same topic with effect from December 2014.

Compliant reports: The CPR, the Practice Direction and the guidance concern experts who are giving or preparing evidence to be used for civil proceedings. An understanding on the provision of the form and content of an experts report. This provides the background structure to a medicolegal report to enable consistency and a systematic process for presenting a report. We aim to comply with the standards whenever possible.

Advisory reports: On occasion, such as at the early stages of investigations into liability and causation, our experts may be instructed to provide a report on an “advice-only” basis prior to or during proceedings. Such advice is not designed for use in court and is of a different character to CPR Part 35 evidence, so these rules do not strictly apply. However, we will still follow the guidance and principles when preparing a report even on an advice-only basis.
‍

Our Practice recognises the guide to assist experts in understanding CPR Part 35 and to assist in complying with those requirements.