In complex claims involving overlapping physical and psychological harm, identifying the correct expert at the outset is critical to building a coherent case.

In this case, a solicitor was progressing a claim involving a vulnerable claimant, a young refugee mother detained in severely inadequate conditions. The case raised complex questions around both neurological and pain-related injury, and it was not immediately clear which expert discipline would be most appropriate to address breach, causation, and long-term impact.

From the outset, a dedicated INNEG Analyst took ownership of the enquiry, working closely with the solicitor to understand the nuances of the claim and the evidential challenges it presented.

Rather than proceeding with a single assumption, the Analyst engaged directly with both a Consultant Neurologist and a Pain Medicine expert to test the clinical framing of the case. This ensured that the decision on expert instruction was informed by specialist input, not guesswork.

Based on this early expert engagement, a Neurologist was identified as the most appropriate discipline to lead on the case, providing clarity on both diagnosis and causation in the context of the claimant’s experience.

This approach avoided the risk of instructing the wrong expert, reducing the need for re-instruction, delay, or fragmented evidence further down the line.

The result was not simply correct expert selection, but a more robust and defensible evidential foundation from the outset, enabling the solicitor to progress the case with confidence.

For complex claims where multiple disciplines may apply, INNEG provides structured, analyst-led support to ensure the right expert is identified early, maintaining clarity, continuity, and control throughout the life of the case.