Insurers can be hard work.

In the first days following your accident, make daily notes of all pains and discomfort your injuries cause.

For at least the first month or two make notes daily on areas such as:

Again write down the small details. You may suffer niggling pain that seems inconsequential at the time but may become important when you trying to gain compensation.

Taking notes on your injury will make it easier for you (and possibly your lawyer) to later describe to an insurance company how much and what kind of pain you were in, and for how long.

Writing down your different injuries will also help you remember to report them to a doctor or other medical provider when you receive treatment.

A relatively small snap of the neck, for example, may not seem worth mentioning…

…but it might help:

• the doctor; and
• the insurance company

…understand why your bad back pain developed two to three days later, or several weeks, after the accident.

As the saying goes, a picture is worth a thousand words…and then some. Photos are useful because they…

…preserve evidence of the extent of the injury

…show the damage better than you can describe them

…are difficult to contradict. An insurer will find it harder to deny the evidence in a photograph. 

Wounds and injuries heal. Without photographs it will be difficult later to convince an insurance company in the ways and to the degree you claimed.

Failing to seek immediate treatment can lead an insurance company to believe that your injuries were not that serious, or that you made them up entirely.

...because of your injuries. 

Other important notes to make that don’t relate to your economic loss but rather cover your general loss of enjoyment of life include missed:

Make note of these factors too. They can often be overlooked in a compensation claim and can be financially compensated for.

Return to the scene of the accident as soon as possible to locate any evidence and photograph any conditions you believe may have contributed to the accident.

Draw a diagram of where key things were/are located such as:

Having a witness on your side is powerful.

Witnesses may be able to describe details that confirm what your believed happened. This backs up your story…

…and ensures that the insurer can’t dismiss your claim.

Here’s how to gather evidence from witnesses so that the insurer cannot disregard their statement. 

Start taking notes about conversations (telephone, in person or emails) that you have witnesses, insurance companies, lawyers and medical personnel (such as other doctors, nurses or admin staff).

Make written notes of the:

• date
• time
• people involved and
• contents

...of every conversation you have about your treatment or complaint. 

This last point is less about note-taking and more about taking an extra action that covers all your bases so no insurance company can discount you as a liar.

In the course of your claim, you will likely be told or promised something or given some information that you want to make sure isn’t denied at a later date

…such as…

…the witness statements or

…results of tests

…when you expect to hear the result of your complaint.

Immediately after the conversation, send a letter confirming what the person told you. The letter does not have to be elaborate, just a brief restatement of what was said.

Make a copy for your files before sending it on.

A sample email or letter can be shown below

The claims process can be a battle of determination. But with these notes, you will be holding all the cards.

The Facts (Nominal Defendant v Rooskov)

On 18 May 2005, Nigel rode his mountain bike to the local bowls club. Whilst at the bowls club he drank approximately 6 to 8 schooners of beer. Between 3.30pm and 4.30pm that afternoon he left the bowls club on his bike to ride home. He was not wearing a helmet.

It was a fine sunny day and Nigel was riding along the left-hand side of the roadway. He was riding downhill on a straight section of the road. As he was riding along, he heard a whistling noise from behind him, a screech of brakes and was then struck from behind. A vehicle hit the rear, right-hand side or back of the bike (Nigel was not sure which). This caused him to careen off the road. Nigel was thrown from his bike and landed in a ditch. He was knocked unconscious and sustained severe injuries to his back in the accident.

Nigel was found by people passing by who called the ambulance and police. He was transported to Wollongong Hospital for treatment and was subsequently diagnosed with a severe concussion and post-traumatic amnesia.

The Decision

One of the main issues at the trial was whether Nigel had been struck by an unidentified motor vehicle. It was argued by the Nominal Defendant that he lost control of his bicycle and ran off the road.

Nigel initially reported that he was struck by a vehicle. This was noted in the ambulance records, police records and initial hospital records. However, at the hospital his memory of the accident became vague and he expressed doubt about what had happened. He reported that to nursing staff, doctors and the police.

A police officer attended the scene of the accident that evening. He examined the scene and took a number of photographs. He also took photographs of the bike and noted there was no damage sustained to the bike. He did find skid marks located at the accident scene but dismissed them as being unrelated to the accident. The officer gave evidence at the trial that he was of the view that Nigel had not been hit by a motor vehicle.

Nigel’s father, a retired police officer, attended the accident scene two days after the accident and undertook his own investigations. That included taking a detailed sketch plan of the accident site with details of all relevant measurements of the area and the skid marks located at the accident scene. He also reported that the skid marks were very dark at that time and faded over the course of the next week.

Nigel gave evidence at the trial in which he maintained he had been hit by a vehicle. This was despite the fact that he later lost his memory whilst in the hospital and became unclear on what had happened.

Despite the evidence of the police officer at the trial, the judge held the following view:

“The difficulty I have with the skid marks is that they were consistent in location and presence and time with the sworn evidence of the plaintiff and consistent with versions he had given at various times….”.

Nigel’s evidence, the records given to the various medical personnel and the skid marks, persuaded the judge that Nigel had been hit by an unidentified vehicle. The judge awarded damages to Nigel for his injuries in the sum of $586,781.24 but deducted 5% of his damages because he was not wearing a helmet.

The Nominal Defendant appealed the judge’s decision. They argued that Nigel was not hit by an unidentified vehicle. The court of appeal did not agree with the Nominal Defendant and held that the original assessment made by the trial judge was correct.

Nigel was successful despite the fact he sustained a head injury, had a poor recollection of events after the accident and the investigations undertaken by police were not favourable to his case.

Cycle Law Opinion

The trial judge did not accept the evidence of the police officer at the trial. The fact that Nigel’s father also investigated the accident scene shortly after the accident assisted Nigel to win his case.

Nigel’s loss of memory in relation to the accident whilst he was in the hospital was not enough to persuade the judge that Nigel was incorrect when he initially stated he was hit by a vehicle. There was sufficient evidence contained in the various records to show that he did initially report he was hit by a vehicle. Further, the location of the skid marks at the accident scene were consistent with Nigel’s version of events.

Head injuries in accidents are more common than you might think and memory loss can be a side effect of a head injury. However, this does not mean you will lose your case even if there are no witnesses to the accident.

The graph below is the percentage of the types of injuries sustained in accidents from 1 July 2007 to 31 December 2016, including head injuries.

When head injuries are compared with other types of injuries they actually represent the fifth most common type of injury sustained in accidents.