A minor physical outcome does not measure psychological impact.
The seriousness of the physical injury is not a reliable measure of the psychiatric response. A claimant may believe that they are about to die, lose control of a vehicle or seriously injure somebody else, even though the eventual bodily injury is limited.
A person whose own safety was placed at risk may develop a recognised psychiatric condition despite escaping without a fracture, wound or other substantial physical injury. The relevant assessment concerns the event as experienced by the claimant and the condition that followed, not merely the physical outcome.
This does not mean that every frightening event produces a compensable injury. Fear, shock and distress are ordinary human reactions. The claimant must generally establish a medically recognised psychiatric condition rather than anxiety or upset alone.
The condition must be recognised and supported.
A claimant may develop post-traumatic stress disorder, a specific phobia, an adjustment disorder, depression or another recognised condition. The diagnostic label should follow a proper clinical assessment rather than the language used in the claim.
The expert should identify the symptoms, their duration, severity and functional consequences. They should explain why the relevant diagnostic criteria are met and distinguish the condition from short-lived distress.
A claimant who feels nervous on motorways but continues normal travel may have understandable anxiety without a psychiatric disorder. Another who experiences panic, intrusive recollections and substantial avoidance may present differently. The distinction lies in the nature and effect of the symptoms, not in the repair cost of the vehicle.
Questionnaire scores may assist but should not determine the diagnosis. The opinion should be based upon the clinical interview, available records, functional history and any relevant treatment evidence.
Causation remains a separate question.
A recognised diagnosis does not prove that the index event caused it.
The expert should establish when symptoms began, whether they were documented at the time and how they developed. Previous mental-health difficulties, earlier accidents, chronic pain and later life events may offer alternative or additional explanations.
A claimant may have had a vulnerability without an active disorder before the event. The accident may trigger a new condition or a recurrence. In another case, the records may show that anxiety or depression was already worsening before the accident.
The report should explain what probably would have happened without the event. The accident need not be the sole cause, but the fact that symptoms appeared afterwards is not enough on its own.
The expert should consider whether the event caused a new disorder, aggravated an existing condition, triggered a recurrence or produced only a temporary increase in symptoms.
Direct involvement in an accident.
A claimant who was directly involved in an accident may recover for a recognised psychiatric injury where their own safety was endangered, even if they escaped without significant physical injury.
A near collision may therefore produce a genuine psychiatric condition despite there being no physical impact. A passenger may develop severe psychological symptoms after believing that death or serious injury was imminent, even though the vehicle stops before the feared collision occurs.
The claimant must still establish the event, the psychiatric injury and a reliable causal connection between them. The fact that serious physical harm was avoided does not make the psychological consequences medically insignificant.
The expert should describe the claimant’s experience, diagnosis and probable cause. They should avoid making final legal determinations outside their professional field.
Witnessing harm to another is treated differently.
The position is more restrictive where the claimant was not personally endangered but developed psychiatric illness after witnessing harm to another person.
A recognised psychiatric diagnosis is necessary, but it may not be sufficient. The circumstances in which the event was witnessed, the claimant’s relationship with the injured person and the closeness of the claimant to the incident may all be relevant.
The medical expert should not attempt to decide whether every legal requirement has been satisfied. Their role is to diagnose the condition, explain its likely cause and describe the effect upon the claimant.
Where the legal status of the claimant depends upon disputed facts, the expert may need to provide alternative medical opinions based upon different factual assumptions.
Whiplash claims need careful classification.
The whiplash framework distinguishes minor psychological injury from a recognised psychological disorder.
Government guidance states that minor psychological injury under the tariff must occur on the same occasion as the physical whiplash injury, be secondary in significance to it and fall short of a specific phobia or diagnosable psychological disorder. Low-level travel anxiety and occasional sleep disturbance may fall within this category.
The tariff’s minor psychological injury category cannot be used where there is no physical whiplash injury. A claim based solely upon shock or travel anxiety, without physical injury or a recognised psychological condition, will not ordinarily fall within that category.
That does not mean a diagnosed psychiatric disorder requires a significant physical injury. A separate recognised condition requires its own diagnosis, causation analysis and appropriate evidence rather than being placed automatically within the minor psychological injury category.
The expert should avoid describing every reference to nervousness as a psychiatric injury. Equally, a substantial psychological disorder should not be reduced to minor travel anxiety merely because the associated physical injury was modest.
What should the expert address?
The expert should not assume that the psychological outcome must be proportionate to the physical injury.
The assessment should consider the claimant’s perception of danger, immediate response, symptom onset, functional change, previous history, competing stressors, treatment and prognosis. The report should distinguish the claimant’s account from the documentary evidence and identify material that weakens as well as supports causation.
A significant delay before symptoms were reported may reduce confidence in the claimed chronology, particularly where severe symptoms are later alleged. It does not automatically disprove the condition. Some claimants initially focus upon pain, vehicle damage, employment or practical problems and disclose psychological symptoms only when they persist.
The expert should also consider whether the alleged disability is consistent with the records and documented activities. Genuine psychiatric injury, variable function and symptom exaggeration can coexist.
A general medical expert may adequately describe mild, short-lived symptoms. A significant, persistent or diagnostically uncertain presentation may require assessment by a suitably qualified psychologist or psychiatrist.
A claimant can recover for psychological injury without significant physical injury. In some circumstances, no bodily injury is required at all. What remains necessary is a recognised psychiatric condition, a defensible causal connection and evidence showing how the condition has affected the claimant.
The expert should not inflate understandable anxiety into psychiatric illness. Nor should they dismiss genuine psychological harm because the body escaped largely uninjured.
The physical outcome may be minor. The psychiatric injury must still be properly established.
