Medico Legal report is incorrect - advice appreciated

[MedicalReport]

I'd be grateful for any knowledgeable advice on an issue I have with a medico legal report.

I have ongoing litigation against my employer relating to the actions of a former manager. Without going into the details, he harassed me over an extended period of time, even after he was removed as my manager. His behaviour was completely abnormal and he is utterly fixated on me, showing a degree of persistence which is at stalking levels. I found the whole issue very traumatic and I am still off as a result with work related stress. As part of the legal case, I was sent to a consultant psychiatrist, instructed by my solicitor. He had access to my GP records and occupational health records, as well as meeting with me in person. He never discussed the content of the records with me.

I have just received his report which is full of factual errors. Examples include him stating that I had been on a particular drug which is used to treat schizophrenia & bi-polar disorder. This is completely untrue, and I have never suffered from these conditions, nor has there ever been any suggestion of it. On googling, the drug isn't one which can be used for any other purpose.

I suffer from a long term neck condition, and in the past I have been prescribed nortryptiline and diazepam as pain killers / anti spasmodics. These drugs can also be used as anti-depressants, but at much higher dosages. The psychiatrist has listed these under the heading 'Past Psychiatric History' even though the dosage of the drug is at pain relief levels rather than anti-depressant, and the GP notes would clearly show that they were prescribe for pain relief. He has listed various encounters with Occupational Health relating to my neck condition under "Past Psychiatric History'.

He has concluded that I have an extensive history of psychiatric illness and I am vulnerable to psychiatric illness. Again, this is untrue. I sought help from my GP and Occupational Health in the mid-90's for a traumatic work related issue (I work in a high conflict field), and I was briefly prescribed anti-depressants in 2000 for a situational family issue. That is the extent of any involvement with mental health issues, other than this current matter. Until now I have never been off work for stress related matters.

I have highlighted the errors in the report to my solicitor, and commented that it appears the main problem is the psychiatrist's misinterpretation of the GP and Occupational Health records. I offered to meet with him again and discuss this aspect of his report.

My solicitor has just responded to me that as I am unhappy with the report I will have to employ my own psychiatrist (at my own cost) for a new report if I want to pursue this aspect of the case. He hasn't forwarded my comments on the report to the psychiatrist so that he can review them and rectify the report, and doesn't appear to plan to do so.

I just don't know what to do. It feels that even having to say that I don't have an extensive psychiatric history, people will disbelieve me, and think 'okaaay, sure you don't' - the seed has been sown. I am a functioning adult with a happy marriage, good friends, and am quite senior in my field having successfully managed in a very stressful field for almost 30 years. I know I shouldn't even need to justify myself, but yet I feel I do.

Can any legal bods advise - is it normal not to pass on comments relating to inaccuracies to the medical person who has provided the report? The vast majority of the comments relate to factual inaccuracies, as opposed to opinion. My case is being funded by my union, and it appears that the psychiatrist will be paid for the report as it stands, despite the inaccuracies.

Not a PI solicitor (I work in family law) but normally whenever we get an expert report in there is an opportunity to correct any factual errors in the report and the expert will then decide whether and how to amend their report. I can't see that it would or should be any different for you.

As part of a legal claim I made I had a lot of expert reports done. One was absolutely awful and we complained and he wasn’t paid. The second report, made by another expert wasn’t very useful so wasn’t used in the end.

Other reports which had minor errors were sent back for correction. Your solicitor needs to address this as they are there to represent you and your interests. A factually incorrect report does not do this.

I would bullet point all the errors and ask for a new report to be commissioned. I was always given a list of experts to choose from.

Good luck.

Agree with pp. I would push back on your solicitor on this. You have the right to correct errors in the report. That shouldn't be at your own cost nor should you have to get a new report if this one is factually wrong op x

Thanks all. That's what I thought the case should be, but was so confused by the approach of the solicitor that he was happy to shrug and accept a report full of factual errors. I'm not entirely sure that I am happy with him, but it is a firm used by the union, so I have no choice.

My employer had provided discovery, which was actually only about 25% of relevant material. The solicitor asked for my views, and I provided a comprehensive written list of items which were still required, and he only requested half of what I had specified. So the (court ordered) deadline for discovery has been and gone, and my legal team haven't even requested all of it.

The factual inaccuracies and the experts opinion are two different issues.

Your solicitor should put your comments to the expert, but be prepared for push back. The expert has presumably got the information as to your medication from somewhere, so perhaps your GP records are incorrect?

His conclusion that you are vulnerable to psychiatric illness is his professional opinion. You can't challenge that. Your solicitor also cannot keep changing or getting new reports until they say what you want them to say. The expert's duty is to the court and he cannot change his report because you don't like the conclusion.

As to the discovery, although I don't know the quality of your solicitor, you probably need to trust their expertise in this respect. Clients often give me a long list of documents they want to request, but that doesn't mean it is appropriate to request them or the other side has any obligation to provide them.

I would ask your solicitor to raise the factual inaccuracies with the expert, but you can't challenge his professional opinion.

Place marking- I'm a personal injury solicitor. Sounds like a bad cut and paste job from someone else's report which happens lots. You need to go back to them and ask for it to be amended and don't sign the statement of truth or disclosure until you are happy . I can help more later, just ridiculously busy but will respond tonight properly if that's ok. Or PM me, I don't mind.

Tinchy Kanaga*, thanks.

I take your point Tinchy about the professional opinion, but IMO the expert's opinion is based on interpreting that some of the medication I was being prescribed was for depression. I have actually dug out the box of nortryptiline from a number of years ago (I hadn't finished some of it) and even on the dispensing label it clearly states 'for pain'.

In terms of the discovery, I know what you mean, but this is relevant documentation that has been missed. As an example, in the grievance report there is reference to a written report made by my former manager in response to the grievance, and various witness accounts, yet they weren't appended to the material. I pointed this out, however the further information wasn't requested and my solicitor responded to my employer that this aspect was resolved. I'm seeing my solicitor later in the week and I will discuss it with him then. Thanks again for your views.

I work in this field. You need to insist that your solicitor gives an exact list of the errors and inaccuracies to the psychiatrist. You are right in thinking that these changes could influence the opinion. All sorts of errors can creep into medical records and then be copied from report to report.

There may be other things that influence the opinion and overall it may not change; but the expert should be as keen as you are to get the facts right.

Just to be clear, are you saying there are drugs in the report that you have never taken, or that you've taken all the drugs mentioned but he has implied these are for psychiatric reasons and they were all actually for pain/anti-spasmodic reasons?

Anchor, both.

The psychiatrist has stated that I had been taking Risperidone, which on googling, I discovered to be an anti-psychotic used to treat schizophrenia & bi-polar disorder. I have never been prescribed this drug, nor has there ever been any suggestion that I suffer from these conditions. It does not appear to be used for any other purpose.

I have been prescribed nortryptiline and diazepam on an intermittent basis over the last 10 years for pain relief, although both drugs can be used for psychiatric purposes at much higher doses. The psychiatrist has listed these under the heading 'Past Psychiatric History' along with numerous other entries which relate to me discussing my thyroid with the GP, and discussing my neck condition with Occupational Health.

Hi, Could you please contact me? I would need an opinion from you also. Thanks in advance.