A claimant solicitor was progressing a clinical negligence claim in which the claimant experienced ongoing psychological symptoms alongside cognitive and behavioural changes following the index incident.

The solicitor needed expert evidence that could address both the claimant’s psychiatric presentation and the neurocognitive features being reported - while keeping the instruction proportionate and avoiding duplication.

The Challenge

Based on the medical records and allegations, the solicitor initially anticipated the need for two experts:

• a psychiatrist to address diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis; and
• a neuropsychologist to consider cognitive impairment and functional impact.

Initial enquiries indicated a combined expert cost of £6,450 if both experts were instructed.

However, there was a clear risk that the reports would overlap - particularly around symptom presentation, causation, day-to-day functioning, and prognosis - with the potential for duplicated evidence that would not necessarily strengthen the claim.

The solicitor needed robust, defensible evidence, but wanted to avoid unnecessary cost exposure at this stage.

How INNEG Added Value

The solicitor asked INNEG to assist with sourcing the most appropriate expert for the issues in dispute.

INNEG reviewed the scope of the evidence required and identified that the key questions could be addressed through a single instruction to a consultant neuropsychiatrist - a discipline well placed to assess the relationship between psychiatric symptoms and neurocognitive presentation within one cohesive opinion.

Using panel insight and targeted matching, INNEG identified an expert with the clinical scope and medico-legal experience to comment on:

• psychiatric injury and symptom progression
• cognitive and behavioural features within a neuropsychiatric framework
• functional impact and prognosis
• recommended treatment and likely recovery trajectory

This enabled the solicitor to proceed with one cohesive medico-legal report, rather than coordinating multiple overlapping instructions.

The Outcome

By instructing one appropriately matched neuropsychiatry expert instead of two separate disciplines, the solicitor reduced projected expert costs from £6,450 to £3,330, achieving a saving of £3,120.

This approach also supported a clearer, more streamlined evidence strategy - ensuring the solicitor had a single, authoritative opinion aligned to the issues in dispute, without unnecessary duplication.