Jo
Chapman
Jo specialises in catastrophic personal injury and clinical negligence claims. She is highly experienced in dealing with severe and complex claims such as brain injury, spinal injury, amputation and fatal accident claims. She also has experience in historic child abuse claims and actions involving the Ministry of Defence. She has been described as an outstanding and tenacious personal injury and clinical negligence practitioner and is recommended by the Legal 500. She has an acute eye for detail, tactical nous and manages to be both professionally reassuring and sympathetic towards clients. She advocates a client-centred, team-based approach to managing the claim.
Career
Jo trained at Rance and Co, Solicitors in Islington and qualified in November 1990. She joined Bolt Burdon Kemp in October 1996 as a specialist claimant personal injury solicitor with a particular interest in brain injury claims and became a Partner in 2003.
Memberships
Law Society Personal Injury and Clinical Negligence Panels Accredited
Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL) Special interest groups: Clinical Negligence, Brain Injury, Spinal Injury, Child abuse, Child Injury, Military.
Royal Society of Medicine (Associate)
Headway
Spinal Injuries Association
Child Brain Injury Trust
UK Acquired Brain Injury Forum
Education
University of Kent at Canterbury – English and American Literature (BA)
College of Law, London – Common Professional Examination
College of Law, London – Legal Practice Course
Personal
When not working, Jo enjoys spending time with her family, horse-riding, running, art, film and music.
Recent cases
Recent successes include –
• Claim for catastrophic mental and physical injuries suffered as a result of a massive stroke caused by the defendant hospital's negligent medical treatment and failure to properly manage her condition after an earlier, minor, stroke. The Claimant suffered a complete disruption of language function and as a result was unable to speak, write or understand spoken language. Her life expectancy was limited. She was awarded £1,275,000.00 lump sum (including general damages), plus £110,000.00 periodical payments, which capitalised to £2.4m using a life multiplier of 10.5.
• Claim for catastrophic brain injuries sustained by a 2 year old child who was a passenger in a car, being driven by her mother, which collided with a lorry. The Claimant's mother died in the accident. The claim settled for £1.7 million lump sum and periodical payments of £116k pa, not including interim payments totalling over £300k.
• Claim against the Ministry of Defence ("MOD") for personal injuries and loss suffered as a result of its failure to diagnose and treat a rupture of the left Achilles tendon. The delay in diagnosis and further delay in carrying out the repair meant that the repair was not successful and the Claimant's promising career in the Royal Navy (submarines) was curtailed due to his physical limitations. After several offers by the Defendant the claim finally settled for £250,000.00.
• Claim for damages for personal and psychological injury and financial loss suffered as a result of the Defendant Hospital's negligence in failing to detect a perforation of the Claimant's oesophagus, sustained during a rigid oesophagoscopy under general anaesthetic, before she was discharged from hospital. She continued to suffer symptoms of pain, backache and difficulty breathing for about 6 weeks before she was diagnosed with a pneumothorax. A chest drain was inserted and 1 litre of pus was drained followed by 1.5 litres of pus and air. A barium swallow showed an oesophageal leak. This was treated conservatively but the despite chest drainage the left lung did not re-expand and the Claimant had to undergo decortication, leaving substantial scarring.
• Claim for damages for personal injuries and financial loss caused by pressure ulcers resulting from the defendant's negligent medical care.
Reported Cases
Soliman -v- Islington Borough Council
Jo represented the Claimant In a claim where damages had been settled for £50,000 in respect of a personal injury claim, the defendant failed to make any interim reimbursement of costs. The matter was before the court on a costs only trial, wherein the judge ordered that a payment on account was to be made. The principles laid down in the judgment were clear. In the ordinary course, and notwithstanding the court's discretion, an order for a payment on account of costs would ordinarily follow where the claim had been settled on terms providing for payment of the claimant's costs, where there was no risk of appeal and where the defendant was not impecunious. It was unreasonable, therefore, for the defendant's insurers to have refused to concede the principle that such a payment was appropriate. That conduct alone had necessitated the present hearing, since it was highly likely that the amount of any such payment would have been agreed if the principle had been conceded. It followed that the claimant should have the costs of the hearing, but only the standard basis.
Back to Our Team