An Interview with Mr Scott Watson

IN A RECENT INTERVIEW MR SCOTT-WATSON LET US IN ON THE SECRET TO HIS SUCCESS: “THE DIFFICULTY WITH BEING AN EXPERT WITNESS IN THE FIELD OF ORTHOPAEDICS IS THAT MUCH OF WHAT THE COURT REQUIRES IS NOT ROUTINE NHS WORK .

CLEARLY IT IS ESSENTIAL TO BE KNOWLEDGEABLE ABOUT ALL THE SUBJECTS THE EXPERT IS CLAIMING TO BE EXPERT IN, IN EVERY CASE BUT QUALIFICATIONS ARE ALSO ESSENTIAL THERE MAY HAVE BEEN A TIME WHEN AN EXPERT COULD CLAIM TO BE SO BECAUSE OF EXPERIENCE ALONE, BUT REALLY BOTH EXPERIENCE AND QUALIFICATIONS ARE REQUIRED.

IN MY DAY THE ESSENTIAL QUALIFICATION WAS THE FELLOWSHIP OF A ROYAL COLLEGE OF SURGEONS, BUT THIS HAS SINCE CHANGED AND THE TRAUMA AND ORTHOPAEDIC FELLOWSHIP WOULD BE ESSENTIAL FOR MORE RECENT EXPERTS,” HE ADDED, “IN ADDITION, I HOLD THE DIPLOMA IN DISABILITY ASSESSMENT MEDICINE. EXPERIENCE FROM THAT IS OF ASSISTANCE IN GIVING OPINIONS ON DISABILITIES AND THEIR INTERACTIONS, WHICH IS OFTEN A MAJOR PART OF A CASE AND OFTEN NOT DEALT WITH IN DETAIL. IT IS ALSO USEFUL TO HOLD THE LLB SO THAT I CAN UNDERSTAND WHERE LAWYERS ARE COMING FROM AND WHAT THEY ARE SAYING (SOMETIMES)

EXPERIENCE IS ALSO ESSENTIAL IN PROVIDING THE COURTS WHAT THEY REQUIRE FORTUNATELY AFTER NEARLY 25 YEARS AND OVER 23,000 REPORTS, THERE ARE NOT MANY THINGS THAT ARE NEW, BUT THE ODD ONE STILL TURNS UP NOW AND AGAIN.”

WHEN ASKED HOW OFTEN HE WAS REQUIRED TO ATTEND COURT, HE TOLD US:

“ COURT ATTENDANCES ARE RARE, I WOULD PUT IT AT ABOUT ONE IN A THOUSAND CASES, SO THAT WORKS OUT AT BETWEEN ONE AND TWO PER YEAR. I USUALLY FIND THEY ARE CASES WHERE I AM INSTRUCTED BY SOLICITORS FOR THE CLAIMANT AND, MORE OFTEN THAN NOT, THE PROBLEM IS THAT THE OTHER EXPERT HAS NOT STUCK FIRMLY TO CPR PART 35 AND HAS BECOME PARTISAN ”

A MEMBER OF THE OXFORD MEDICAL & LEGAL SOCIETY, MR. SCOTT-WATSON ATTENDS INDUSTRY-LED CONFERENCES EACH YEAR, IN ORDER TO KEEP ABREAST OF INNOVATIONS WITHIN THE SECTOR.

GIVING US BRIEF EXAMPLES OF CASES THAT HE HAS SUCCESSFULLY UNDERTAKEN IN THE PAST, MR. SCOTT-WATSON WENT ON TO SAY:

“MANY OF THE CASES ARE DUE TO INITIAL REPORTS PROVING INCORRECT WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME THE INITIAL GENERAL PRACTITIONER REPORT IS SOMETHING WE HAVE ALL COME TO KNOW BUT REALISTICALLY IN ALL BUT THE MOST MINOR CASES THEIR VALUE IS VERY LIMITED.

HOWEVER, THE TELEPHONE ONLY ‘REHABILITATION REPORT' IS WORSE THAN USELESS THE TIME USED TO ASSESS THE CASE DURING THESE INTERVIEWS IS INADEQUATE TO MAKE AN ASSESSMENT AND DIAGNOSIS AND TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS ARE NOT ALWAYS CORRECT. THE REPORT BEING WRITTEN WITHOUT MEDICAL NOTES MEANS THAT IT IS ALMOST ENTIRELY A CLAIMANT ACCOUNT, WHICH IS NOT ALWAYS FOUND TO BE CORRECT AT MORE DETAILED EXAMINATION AS A RESULT, AT A LATER STAGE, THEIR ONLY VALUE IS IN REDUCING THE NEED TO REMEMBER WHAT HAPPENED, BUT WHAT WAS SAID AT THESE INTERVIEWS CAN CAUSE A CONSIDERABLE DIFFICULTY FOR THE CLAIMANT IF IT IS CONTRADICTED BY THE NOTES”

THE MOST INTERESTING CASES, FROM MR. SCOTT-WATSON'S EXPERIENCE, ARE MULTIPLE INJURIES AND THOSE WITH INTER-ACTING DISABILITY WHICH MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE COME FROM THE ACCIDENT.