Robert Dickason examines exaggerated injuries & insurer misrepresentation claims
In 1998, Hayward was injured in the course of his employment. Proceedings were issued and, by October 2003, Hayward and his lawyers thought they were home and dry. Liability had been compromised at 80% in August 2002 and the employer had since paid £100,000 into court, alongside interim payments of £12,500 and a sum in the region of £22,000 payable to the Department of Work and Pensions. Hayward decided to take the money, and the settlement was embodied in the form of a Tomlin order.
Settlement
The settlement figure was much lower than the £420,000 originally pleaded, but that had been before surveillance evidence cast Hayward in a rather more capable light than his future earnings claim suggested.
Consequently, the defence alleged that he had been exaggerating his injuries for financial gain—as close to pleading fraud as it could get without actually using the f-word. Having seen the tapes, the orthopaedic surgeons agreed that Hayward was in fact fit for part-time
-maryam-naaz-theo-corbett-and-rachel-carter-with-(front-from-left)-arya-vindlacheruvu-and-jessica-ashcroft.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=47f89300_1)
