A claimant solicitor was progressing a complex personal injury claim involving injuries to both the upper and lower limbs.

Based on the injury profile, the initial assumption was that the case would require two separate orthopaedic experts - one specialising in upper limb injuries and another in lower limb orthopaedics - to address breach, causation and prognosis.

Before proceeding, the solicitor asked INNEG to source suitable experts.

The Challenge

Quotes were obtained for two orthopaedic reports, with combined fees totalling £4,139 more than a single-instruction approach. While clinically sensible on the surface, instructing two experts risked unnecessary duplication, increased costs, and a greater chance of irrecoverable spend - particularly where opinions might overlap on function, recovery and long-term impact.

The solicitor needed comprehensive orthopaedic evidence, but without inflating costs unnecessarily.

How INNEG Added Value

Rather than defaulting to two separate instructions, INNEG reviewed the clinical issues in detail and assessed whether the evidential needs genuinely required multiple experts.

Using its wider panel insight, INNEG identified a Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon with recognised expertise across both upper and lower limb injuries, and with substantial medico-legal experience covering combined musculoskeletal claims. This ensured that all relevant injuries could be addressed within a single, cohesive report, without compromising clinical authority or evidential robustness.

INNEG also worked with the solicitor to refine the scope of instruction, ensuring the expert addressed both injury regions clearly and proportionately within one brief.

The Outcome

By instructing one appropriately skilled orthopaedic expert instead of two, the solicitor achieved a £4,139 saving in expert fees, while still obtaining comprehensive, court-ready orthopaedic evidence.

The consolidated report also reduced the risk of inconsistent opinions, simplified case management, and strengthened cost proportionality throughout the claim.

Why does this matter?

In musculoskeletal injury claims, expert costs often escalate due to assumptions about subspecialisation. In reality, carefully matched experts with broader clinical scope can often provide more coherent evidence - at significantly lower cost.

This case highlights how informed expert selection, rather than multiple instructions by default, can materially reduce unrecoverable costs while improving evidential clarity.