As ever, this article from is a really helpful summary of HHJ Freedman's judgment in a clinical negligence case. The case involved a negligent delay in an ambulance attending a patient who had suffered a sub-arachnoid haemorrhage. 

The decision of the court highlights the issues that can arise when an expert's evidence is found by the court to lack objectivity, both in the expert's written and oral evidence. It is a good reminder for all litigants that the strength of a balanced and nuanced expert opinion should always be favoured, as opposed to one that is bombastic or unthinkingly supportive of either party. It is tempting to ignore such red flags, where the expert supports your case but that can lead to problems further down the line. 

The judgment and article also contain a very helpful, and fairly pithy, analysis of material contribution arguments where PTSD is the injury at the centre of a claim.