When Poor Notes Undermine Expert Evidence

In Hepworth v Coates [2025] EWHC 1907 (KB), the High Court was asked to decide whether a GP had negligently failed to identify “red flag” symptoms of cauda equina syndrome (CES). The claimant alleged that a delay of four days in hospital admission and surgery led to a worse outcome.

Ultimately, the claim was dismissed, with the court finding that the GP had asked the right questions and acted within the standard of care. However, the case is particularly noteworthy for expert witnesses and not for flattering reasons.

The claimant’s rehabilitation expert came under sustained criticism for preparing and having signed a joint statement without reviewing the claimant’s witness statement or other experts’ reports. He did not ask to see them before finalising his opinion.

This led to significant discrepancies:

• His reports overstated the claimant’s use of walking aids, conflicting with her own account and medical records.

• He was unaware of key facts, including overseas travel and discharge notes showing normal motor power.

• In oral evidence, when challenged about a supposed fall record, he attempted to justify his position rather than acknowledge a mistake, something the judge said cast “serious doubt” on his reliability.

The court concluded that it could not rely on his reports or oral evidence.

This judgment highlights a stark but simple point: even if your clinical conclusions are sound, they can be fatally weakened if your preparation is incomplete. Instructing parties and their solicitors may not always provide everything at once, but the responsibility still falls on the expert to ensure their opinions are based on a full and accurate record.

Key Lessons for Medico Legal Experts: How to Protect Your Credibility

Don’t sign off blind:
Always review the claimant’s witness statements, relevant medical records, and other expert reports before finalising your own.

Check your history:
Discrepancies between what you record and what the claimant actually says will undermine your credibility.

Be open about mistakes:
Admitting an error under cross examination is far less damaging than trying to defend the indefensible.

Remember process = credibility:
Courts judge not only the substance of your opinion but also the care and thoroughness of how you reached it.

This case is a clear reminder: an expert’s authority rests as much on method as on expertise. Even well qualified specialists can see their evidence discounted if preparation is incomplete or errors are handled poorly.

To read the full case, click here.