LOCATION: HIGHCLIFFE | LONDON 01425 275555 - FREE PHONE: 0800 083 2755
OPENING HOURS: 9:00 - 17:00 Monday - Friday
click to read more
Case Studies

PERSONAL INJURY CASE STUDIES

 

TYPE OF CLAIM: PERSONAL INJURY – ROAD TRAFFIC ACCIDENT

 

Mr M sustained life changing and life threatening injuries following a car accident in April 2011. As a favour to a friend, the victim was in a broken down car which was being towed to the garage when it was struck by another vehicle. Due to the severity of his injuries he was airlifted to hospital where he underwent major surgery.

Prior to the accident our client ran a business and was an extremely active person and endurance sport enthusiast, and had clocked up thirty two marathons. As a family man, his wife had to give up a high-powered professional job to help care for her husband and their children during his rehabilitation and hospitalisation.

Our client will now face disability and mobility issues for the rest of his life, which has been particularly difficult for a man of his previous physical strength.

Steve Simpkins has supported our client during this extremely difficult period, endeavouring to protect him from any further unnecessary strain or stress.

Court proceedings were issued and we have secured an out of court settlement of £850,000 for our client.

Our client said, “Despite the crash I still feel lucky to be alive as it literally came down to me being an inch away from death. Somebody was looking after me that day. Regarding the claim, this type of legal expertise needs someone at the helm who has the right demeanour and personality to deal with sensitive and often upsetting situations and guide a client through not only physical trauma but also the pressures of the claim itself. Anyone in a similar situation to mine will be in very safe hands if they decide to use Simpkins & Co Solicitors. I cannot fault anything they have done for me and I will always have the utmost respect for Steve Simpkins as a lawyer and a person.”

“I was extremely satisfied with the way my claim was dealt with by Simpkins & Co Solicitors. They were efficient and informative throughout the claim and I was never left in any doubt that they would get the best outcome for me in relation to a compensation award.”

TYPE OF CLAIM: PERSONAL INJURY – ROAD TRAFFIC ACCIDENT

 

This was a personal injury claim which resulted from a road traffic accident. Mr Steven Simpkins of Simpkins & Co secured a sum of £175,000 for the client.

The claimant said “I have received the cheque for the final settlement of my claim and as you said, although it has taken a long time for it to be resolved, you have achieved an excellent result, and I would like to thank you for your time and effort.
I would recommend you without hesitation to anyone who is in need of your services.”

TYPE OF CLAIM: PERSONAL INJURY

 

Our client, Mrs H, was appointed the executor and one of the main beneficiaries under her brother’s will which was drafted by a firm of solicitors in 2008. Under that will, his wife was to receive a life interest in his share of their jointly owned property with the share then passing to our client and a charity equally on his widow’s death. In 2011 our client’s brother died and it then transpired that the solicitors who drafted the will failed to sever the joint tenancy between our client’s brother and his wife which meant that the property passed outright to his wife on his death under the survivorship rules. Our client therefore had a claim as a disappointed beneficiary under the will for a sum equivalent to the 1⁄4 share in the property that she had lost as a result of the solicitor’s negligence.

Court proceedings were issued and an independent valuation was obtained which placed the value of the property in the region of £315,000 – £330,000. A settlement was subsequently agreed between the parties whereby our client received the sum of £50,000.

Our client said “Thank you for your letter of 7th March. I just wanted to say thank you for all your hard work in bringing my case to a successful conclusion and to wish you well for the future”

TYPE OF CLAIM: PERSONAL INJURY – ROAD TRAFFIC ACCIDENT

 

The claim resulted from personal injuries sustained in a road traffic accident in April 2014. The client, Ms A, suffered rib and neck injuries following a rear end shunt accident. An admission of liability was obtained from the defendants insurers who then put forward an offer of compensation of £2800.00 which the client accepted.

The claimant wrote saying ‘I am writing to you concerning the exceptional service I have received from your firm whilst working to settle my traffic accident claim.
I was quite nervous and stressed by having to make the claim but you and your colleagues were always on hand to reassure me, explain everything to me in a simple and understandable way and always kept me informed and updated, which was of real comfort to me.
You made everything easy for me and made the whole process run smoothly and quickly.
You maintained regular contact with me and have always been extremely polite and friendly, always responding promptly to any correspondence from me. I would definitely recommend you to all my friends and family, I could not have asked for a better service.
Thank you for all your help and patience.’

 

TYPE OF CLAIM: PERSONAL INJURY AND EMPLOYMENT LAW, BREACH OF THE MANUAL HANDLING OPERATIONS REGULATIONS 1992, COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE

 

Our client had an accident at work and injured her back and pelvis. She was working for a national retail chain at a branch in the New Forest and was tasked with moving boxes with a weight of at least 20 kilograms.

No health and safety, and in particular manual handling training, was given or provided to our client. Nor was she provided with suitable work equipment to alleviate, assist or indeed avoid the manual handling task.

Allegations of negligence were made against the defendants indicating that they were in breach of the Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992, Common Law Negligence and citing failures to accord with health and safety guidance in relation to manual handling.

Our client has been left with permanent symptoms as a result of her injury and the defendants have accepted liability in full. A substantial amount of compensation was awarded.

TYPE OF CLAIM: PERSONAL INJURY – ACCIDENT AT WORK

 

This was a personal injury claim involving an accident that occurred at work. The claimant, Mr B, sustained a serious upper arm injury due to an unsafe manual handling task he was expected to undertake. The client required corrective surgery to deal with his injury and expert orthopaedic evidence was secured to enable the client to recover a suitable award of damages. The defendants initially offered a sum of £20,000.00 in settlement of the claim but Mr Steven Simpkins of Simpkins & Co secured a sum in excess of £27,000.00 for the client.

Mr B said “Excellent is indeed the only description of the final outcome regarding the settlement, and I have to thank you for that. I would have no hesitation in recommending Simpkins & Co to anyone requiring personal injury case advice and management. It is my belief that I could not have been better advised.”

TYPE OF CLAIM: PERSONAL INJURY – ROAD TRAFFIC ACCIDENT

 

Miss G had a compensation claim arising from injuries and loss sustained in a road traffic accident in September 2012. The other driver’s insurers admitted liability early on in the case.

Medical evidence was gathered.

Offers of £2,000 and £3,000 from the other driver’s insurers were rejected on our advice. A counter offer was put forward by us on Miss G’s behalf. This resulted in us settling the claim for £5000.

Miss G said “Thank you for your help – you have been great to deal with. I will definitely pass on your details to friends and family.”

TYPE OF CLAIM: PERSONAL INJURY – EMPLOYEE INJURED BY A TREE AT WORK

 

Mr W was in the process of clearing a construction site when he was hit by a falling tree and sustained significant orthopaedic injuries as a result.

Initially Mr W dealt directly with his employer’s insurers who indicated to him that if he sought legal representation they would contest their liability. In spite of this, Mr W instructed Simpkins & Co Solicitors to represent him. We gathered full evidence of his injuries and losses, secured an admission of liability from the defendants and, a substantial financial settlement in relation to the claim.

Damages of £175,000 were agreed.

Mr W said “Thank you. I was very pleased with the performance and services of Simpkins & Co Solicitors, they were extremely helpful and professional and I would definitely use them again for any other work in the foreseeable future.”

TYPE OF CLAIM: PERSONAL INJURY – ROAD TRAFFIC ACCIDENT

 

Mr L was involved in a road traffic accident in January 2010. The first two firms of solicitors he wished to instruct declined to represent him in relation to his claim.
Simpkins & Co Solicitors accepted his instructions on a no win no fee basis.
Although the defendants denied liability, the defendants’ insurers, in full settlement of his claim, made an initial offer of £10,000 to the claimant.
Simpkins & Co secured evidence concerning the circumstances of the accident and the injuries sustained by the claimant; this included a serious head injury.

The claim eventually settled for the sum of £275,000.

Mr L said “To Steven Simpkins, just to thank you for all your legal help in winning my compensation claim.”

TYPE OF CLAIM: PERSONAL INJURY  – PEDESTRIAN STRUCK BY A CAR

 

Details of Claim: The claimant was involved in an accident whilst crossing a road in Bournemouth. He was struck by a car and sustained multiple injuries. The defendant (the driver of the car) who caused the Claimant’s injuries was convicted of driving without due care and attention and driving under the influence of alcohol.

Damages recovered for the claimant were £25,000.00.

TYPE OF CLAIM: PERSONAL INJURY – ACCIDENT WHILST WORKING

 

The claimant’s accident occurred whilst he undertook work as a tree surgeon. He was tasked with ascending a tree to cut branches and whilst using work equipment supplied to him, the claimant sustained a laceration to his right wrist with temporary nerve damage. It was alleged that the defendant had failed to properly train the claimant, provide suitable personal protective equipment or indeed to carry out a proper pre or post-accident risk assessment.

Damages recovered for the claimant were £10,000.00.

TYPE OF CLAIM: PERSONAL INJURY – PUBLIC LIABILITY

 

This claim was a public liability accident in relation to workmen leaving an area in a dangerous condition for members of the public. The claimant struck her face on an object that was protruding from a work site and Simpkins & Co successfully recovered damages for her, even though the defendants never accepted liability.

Damages received, in relation to a settlement, were for the sum of £4,250.00.

TYPE OF CLAIM: PERSONAL INJURY

 

This involved a successful claim pursued against a company which was contracted by the local authority to maintain the claimant’s stair lift. The stair lift failed whilst in use resulting in our client sustaining a personal injury.

Compensation awarded: Claim settled out of court for £90,000.

EMPLOYMENT LAW CASE STUDIES

 

TYPE OF CLAIM: EMPLOYMENT LAW – AGE DISCRIMINATION

 

When Mrs P was dismissed by her employer she was aged 54. There were 3 employees in her position, ie with less than 12 months’ continuous employment. Her employer failed to provide any explanation why she was singled out over them. Between the 3 of them with less than 12 months’ service, Mrs P’s age was the only other obvious distinction, the other two being approximately 30 years old. It was clear that her salary was set in accordance with her experience and therefore her age. She had exceeded her targets for the year to date and there was no concern that she would not do so in the future. A younger colleague had been flagged as somebody not meeting their billing targets and Mrs P was tasked with assisting this colleague in building her profile locally in order to boost her workload and her billing figures.

After originally being offered a settlement of £8000, Mrs P eventually agreed to take an out of court settlement of£30,000.

Mrs P from Southampton commented, “I am extremely pleased regarding the settlement of my claim against my former employer for age discrimination, in accordance with the Equality Act. I strongly believe that my former employer treated me less favourably and indirectly discriminated against me on the grounds of my age. Simpkins & Co were superb in their support, advice, and professionalism. I would have absolutely no hesitation in recommending them in the future, to any friends and family who require clear legal advice. I felt like they cared about me and I was more than just a case to them. I have successfully secured another job and can now put that stressful time in my life in the past, thanks to Simpkins & Co”.

TYPE OF CLAIM: EMPLOYMENT LAW – HARASSMENT

 

A Leeds employment tribunal has awarded £19500 for injury to feelings to a waitress on zero-contract hours who was subjected to sex-related harassment. The high award was due to the fact that the claimant was particularly vulnerable due to her young age and fragile mental state. In addition, the employer’s inadequate handling of her complaint magnified the effect of the harassment.

The claimant (S) was 22 years old and had a history of mental health problems, of which her employer (BH Ltd) was aware. S claimed that from February 2013 she was subjected to harassment by her line manager (N). He frequently asked her about her sex life, touched her on the bottom, kissed her neck, stood closely behind her and simulated sexual intercourse. S complained to another line manager who told her to lodge a written complaint but took no further action.

In October 2013 S raised the issue with the general manager (W) and said that she had not wanted to raise the issue earlier as she was worried that her shifts might be reduced. W asked S to lodge a formal grievance. W then conducted an investigation, but did not seek detailed particulars from S and only spent 10 minutes interviewing the main witness to the harassment. N vehemently denied the allegations. In December W wrote to S with the outcome of his investigation, stating that N’s behaviour towards her was inappropriate, but provided no further details. N was asked to stop the behaviour in future, but no further action against him was taken, not even a warning. Before S discovered the outcome of this investigation, she lodged an employment tribunal claim against both N and BH Ltd for sex- related harassment. After receiving this claim, another investigation was conducted by the new HR manager (B) at BH Ltd. N once again denied the allegations.

B, having not read the report of the original investigation, found that there was ‘no conclusive evidence to the majority of incidents’ as it emerged that the main witness had substantially changed their account. S appealed to another manager, who also conducted some investigations, but ultimately rejected the appeal.

The tribunal had ‘no hesitation’ in concluding that the events had occurred in the way that S had described them and that the conduct was unwanted. It considered S to be a credible witness, having given a consistent account throughout. In contrast, N’s evidence was vague and contradictory. There was no doubt that S perceived the treatment she received as degrading and violating her dignity and that it was reasonable for her to do so. The complaint of sex discrimination by way of harassment succeeded. BH Ltd could not demonstrate that it had taken all reasonable steps to prevent the harassment and its policies concerning such conduct, had not been implemented. Its investigations had been wholly inadequate and flawed and in particular, no action had been taken against N.

In setting the level of the award, the tribunal took into account the fact that S was very vulnerable due to her young age and mental health. Also the harassment was made worse by the abuse of power by S’s line manager. This justified setting the award at £19500. This case demonstrates that, contrary to popular perception, zero-hours workers do have some employment rights and tribunals will enforce these where there is a genuine claim.

TYPE OF CLAIM: PERSONAL INJURY AND EMPLOYMENT LAW, BREACH OF THE MANUAL HANDLING OPERATIONS REGULATIONS 1992, COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE

 

Simpkins & Co’s client had an accident at work and injured her back and pelvis. Our client was working for a national retail chain at a branch in the New Forest and was tasked with moving boxes with a weight of at least 20 kilograms.

No health and safety, and in particular manual handling training, was given or provided to our client. Nor was she provided with suitable work equipment to alleviate, assist or indeed avoid the manual handling task.

Allegations of negligence were made against the defendants indicating that they were in breach of the Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992, Common Law Negligence and citing failures to accord with health and safety guidance in relation to manual handling.

Our client has been left with permanent symptoms as a result of her injury and the defendants have accepted liability in full. A substantial amount of compensation was awarded.

 TYPE OF CLAIM: EMPLOYMENT

 

Mr D instructed Simpkins & Co to assist in negotiations with his employer following his dismissal which he thought was unfair. A favourable and satisfactory settlement and reference were secured following negotiations between Simpkins & Co and the respondents representatives.

‘My wife and I wish to express our gratitude to you for your help, assistance and sound advice. I certainly would have no hesitation in recommending your services should the occasion ever arise.’

CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE CASE STUDIES

CASE ONE

From an early age it was always Mr C’s ambition to be a professional sportsman. He played football to a semi-professional level and several other sports, thriving on the physical activity and competitiveness. His daughters take after him, being incredibly sporty and enjoying cricket, gymnastics, athletics, swimming and, of course, football. He ran the local children’s football team and engaged with his daughters in many sporting activities. Mr C, his wife and daughters used to take skiing holidays, which they all very much enjoyed.  Mr C would also undertake DIY tasks around the home and constantly had some project on the go, including major house improvements. The family have a dog and would all love to walk their pet together on a daily basis.

In October 2011 whilst playing football, Mr C was tackled from the side, causing his left kneecap to dislocate. He had sustained a complete rupture of the tendon in his left knee, but crucially this was not diagnosed until 2 months later. Also due to this undiagnosed injury and the fact that he was given incorrect advice by the hospital, he suffered a life-threatening deep vein thrombosis. Mr C underwent several unsuccessful operations in 2012, causing infection and months of immobility. He required intensive rehabilitation and further surgery in 2013. The long term prognosis for Mr C is that the symptoms of pain, swelling and range of movement will not improve.

He has been very saddened by the fact that he can no longer engage in the sporting activities he so loves, especially with his daughters. He has lost his confidence and self-belief which has affected his family, personal and work life in so many ways, and will continue to do so. He has experienced a huge amount of physical pain due to the misdiagnosis and the incorrect advice the hospital gave him.

Mr C approached Simpkins & Co and Steve Simpkins took on his case. Steve secured £530,000 in compensation for Mr C’s clinical negligence. Mr C commented: –From the outset Steve Simpkins was most helpful and was able to give valuable support and advice regarding my options. After further discussions and clinical investigations Simpkins & Co took on my case free of charge and have invested a huge amount of time and resources into ensuring a fair and appropriate outcome. In fact, Steve has personally taken on responsibility for getting the best outcome.  I must say that I have found the whole team extremely ethical and most helpful with a variety of issues. I have received regular updates and communications and all my questions have been answered in full and in a timely manner. I can’t thank Steve and his team enough for both the genuine client care and professional legal representation that they have provided. I would strongly recommend the services of Simpkins & Co to any friends and family in the future.

CASE TWO

Our client, Mrs R, consulted her dentist when several of her teeth had become loose. The teeth were extracted and 5 dental implants were inserted in her upper jaw and 5 in her lower jaw. 2 implants were inserted so close together that it made local hygiene difficult and consequently, a bone infection developed, causing Mrs R great pain.

After the original dentist refused to correct the problem, Mrs R consulted another dentist who removed 2 of the implants and then 2 more at a later date, due to bone loss in her jaw. She then had to undergo a lengthy course of treatment which would not otherwise have been required, with the associated pain, suffering, inconvenience and expense.

Mrs R consulted Simpkins & Co and a substantial compensation settlement was secured for her. Even though the implants had been inserted 6 years previously and therefore she would be ‘out of time’ to make a claim (which needs to be done within 3 years of the injury), Mrs R did not know that she had suffered harm as a consequence of her dental treatment until years later, so the 3-year time limit began when she became ‘aware’ of the problem.

She remarked: “Thank you so much for persevering with this matter on my behalf.  Your input & support over the last 2 plus years have been very much appreciated.”

Popup
Sending
HOW CAN
WE HELP?
Fill in the form
to get in touch!