Understanding the effect of compensation on recovery from severe motor vehicle crash injuries: A qualitative study

Abstract

To explore the factors that influence recovery from serious injuries sustained in motor vehicle crashes, particularly differences between those with compensable and non-compensable injuries.
Qualitative study using grounded theory and focus group methods within the trauma service of a university teaching hospital.
34 subjects (27 male, 7 female), of whom 21 were participants with a compensation claim and 13 were not. Each had sustained injuries in motor vehicle crashes between two and seven years previously.
Themes identified from transcripts of the focus groups.
The themes identified from participants claiming compensation were a strong sense of entitlement and injustice, a difficult claims and settlement process, an inability to move on with life during the claims process, an extreme dislike of medico-legal assessments, the necessity of legal representation to assist with the claims process, and a perceived lack of trust about having to prove an injury or disability. The themes common to all participants were the significance of the trauma experience, the importance of family and social support, and, if self-employed, financial hardship and difficult experiences in returning to work.
The injury recovery experience was difficult for all subjects, but it was particularly stressful for those claiming compensation. Based on this study, the claims process, particularly medico-legal examinations, and other factors that could impact on injury recovery, are targets for further research, possible policy review, or legislative change.

Full text

Understanding the effect of compensation on
recovery from severe motor vehicle crash injuries:
a qualitative study
Darnel F Murgatroyd,
1
Ian D Cameron,
1
Ian A Harris
2
ABSTRACT
Objective To explore the factors that influence recovery
from serious injuries sustained in motor vehicle crashes,
particularly differences between those with compensable
and non-compensable injuries.
Design and setting Qualitative study using grounded
theory and focus group methods within the trauma
service of a university teaching hospital.
Participants 34 subjects (27 male, 7 female), of whom
21 were participants with a compensation claim and 13
were not. Each had sustained injuries in motor vehicle
crashes between two and seven years previously.
Main outcome measure Themes identified from
transcripts of the focus groups.
Results The themes identified from participants claiming
compensation were a strong sense of entitlement and
injustice, a difficult claims and settlement process, an
inability to move on with life during the claims process,
an extreme dislike of medico-legal assessments, the
necessity of legal representation to assist with the
claims process, and a perceived lack of trust about
having to prove an injury or disability. The themes
common to all participants were the significance of the
trauma experience, the importance of family and social
support, and, if self-employed, financial hardship and
difficult experiences in returning to work.
Conclusions The injury recovery experience was
difficult for all subjects, but it was particularly stressful
for those claiming compensation. Based on this study,
the claims process, particularly medico-legal
examinations, and other factors that could impact on
injury recovery, are targets for further research, possible
policy review, or legislative change.
INTRODUCTION
The research evidence showing the impact of factors
relating to financial compensation on people’s
health following injury is growing but disparate.
1e6
Compensation factors are usually described as claim
type, duration, and costs, and although quantifiable,
do not provide information about what aspects of
claims and legal processes might influence people’s
health following injury. Although studies have
shown that legal representation, litigation, and
perceived injustice affect outcomes, there are other
aspects that remain unknown.
7e9
Furthermore,
comparison between compensation schemes
remains problematic because they differ so widely.
Our aim was to explore factors that influence
recovery from serious injuries sustained in motor
vehicle crashes; in particular, whether there would
be differences between people with compensable
and non-compensable injuries. In patients eligible
for compensation, we wished to investigate the
factors involved in the claims and legal processes
that might affect outcomes.
METHODS
Study population and design
Stratified purposeful sampling was undertaken for
recruitment. Patients aged 18 years and over who
were admitted to a major metropolitan trauma and
teaching hospital between 2002 and 2007 were
selected from its trauma database. Liverpool
Hospital provides services to South Western Sydney
and the surrounding region. The catchment area
has a strongly multicultural population and below
average household income. Patients were selected if
they had been involved in a motor vehicle or
motorcycle crash and had sustained upper and/or
lower limb fractures. The exclusion criteria were to
reduce heterogeneity in the sample and eliminate
those who could not logistically attend or be
contacted. These included patients with: a spinal
cord injury, Glasgow Coma Score (GCS) <12 on
admission, minor peripheral fracture or significant
pre-existing cognitive impairment, and over one
hour’s travelling time to the hospital or no contact
address and telephone number. The study was
approved by the hospital and university human
research ethics committees.
Potential participants were mailed an invitation
letter with the selection criteria, aims, and practical
information, including time, duration, and location
for the focus groups. There was no payment to
attend but catering was provided. Transport and
parking payments were offered.
The mail-out occurred in two phases, in
September 2008 and July 2009. Potential partici-
pants were contacted by telephone within two
weeks and consent was obtained. Potential partic-
ipants were allocated to a focus group based on
whether they were claiming financial compensa-
tion, and their availability to attend specific
sessions. We anticipated five to eight attendees in
each group; based on our aims we stratified by
compensation status. A participation letter was
sent confirming their attendance, and all potential
participants received a reminder phone call the
evening before their session.
Data collection
Demographic data such as date of birth and gender,
and injury data including type, severity, date, and
crash type, were retrieved from the trauma data-
base. Injury severity was measured using the Injury
Severity Score (ISS).
10
1
Rehabilitation Studies Unit,
Sydney Medical School,
University of Sydney, Sydney,
NSW, Australia
2
South West Sydney Clinical
School, University of New South
Wales, Liverpool Hospital,
Liverpool, Sydney, NSW,
Australia
Correspondence to
Darnel Murgatroyd,
Rehabilitation Studies Unit,
Northern Clinical
School eSydney Medical
School, The University of
Sydney, PO Box 6, Ryde, NSW
1680, Australia; dmur0062@
uni.sydney.edu.au
Accepted 19 October 2010
Published Online First
11 November 2010
222 Injury Prevention 2011;17:222e227. doi:10.1136/ip.2010.029546
Original article
group.bmj.com on December 6, 2015 - Published by http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/Downloaded from

Additional socio-demographic details obtained by telephone
were: level of education, occupation, claim (yes/no), and claim
type (Workers Compensation, Compulsory Third Party (CTP),
or other). In the state of New South Wales (NSW), CTP can
provide lump sum compensation for pain and suffering,
economic loss, and medical expenses, but no weekly benefits for
wages. During the period studied it was fault-baseddthat is, the
injured person must establish that a vehicle driver or owner, or
someone (other than themselves), partially or completely caused
the crash in order to make a claim. Workers Compensation is
no-fault with similar entitlements, and regardless of who caused
the accident a claim can be made; it includes weekly benefits.
Claimants are entitled to legal representation in both schemes,
with limited access to the court system unless liability is denied.
Each focus group was facilitated by an investigator (DM),
who had previously spoken with participants to arrange their
attendance. A script, including information on confidentiality
and protocol, was followed for the introduction. We declared our
interest in compensation factors to participants.
Four previously unpiloted open ended questions were asked.
They were intended to explore injury recovery with specific
reference to the claims and legal process without providing an
opinion or direction. Questions 3 and 4 were only addressed to
the compensable group. The questions were as follows:
1. What were your experiences following your injury?
2. How do you think your experiences would have been
different if you did/did not have a compensation claim?
3. What was/is it like having a compensation claim?
4. Let’s talk about having a lawyer, what are your thoughts on
this?
All participants were asked to comment for each question and
elaborate if appropriate. No directive feedback was provided.
The groups were recorded and transcribed with consent.
Another investigator (IC) took additional notes for four groups
(2, 4, 6, 8). The attending investigators had no prior relationship
with any of the participants and there was no contact after the
focus groups.
Data analysis
Content analysis of the transcripts was conducted indepen-
dently by two of the researchers (DM and IC). The content was
categorised into themes according to grounded theory method-
ology. This is where data collection begins around a topic
without predefining a research question; it can become more
focused as the study evolves. Following data collection, content
analysis occurs and themes are developed that lead to
a hypothesis.
11
This can be tested in further qualitative or
quantitative research. We selected this methodology because it
gave us the opportunity to explore potential compensation
factors based on participants’responses.
A coding frame for themes was derived from the transcripts
based on common topics, patterns, relationships, and the level of
importance as rated by participants.
12
All transcripts were
re-read to ensure the identified themes were inclusive of all
collected data. Following the second phase of focus groups, data
saturation was reacheddthat is, no new themes emerged in the
second phase.
RESULTS
From a total sample of 709 injured people, there were 381 poten-
tially eligible participants following exclusions for inadequate
contact details and geographical location. Based on the selection
criteria, all potentially eligible participants were extracted from
the trauma database; no further sampling was possible.
Of the 212 potential participants contacted by telephone, 54
agreed to attend (169 could not be contacted or had discon-
nected numbers). There were two main reasons for refusal: lack
of interest or inability to attend because of other commitments.
There were 34 participants who attended (21 compensable and
13 non-compensable). Of the 20 non-attendees, 8 were unable to
attend due to other commitments, usually work, and 12 gave
no reason. There were eight focus groups, four with compen-
sable participants (1, 4, 5, 8) and four without (2, 3, 6, 7).
The compensable group size varied from 7 to 4, while the
non-compensable group ranged from 4 to 2.
Table 1 illustrates the participant profile. There was incom-
plete data for education (3/34) and employment (12/34) because
some participants did not answer these questions.
The scales to measure occupation and education were taken
from the Australian Standard Classification of Occupations
(ASCO), 2nd edition and the Australian Standard Classification
of Education (ASCED) 2001.
13 14
Both scales are used widely
throughout Australia and have international comparability.
For data analysis there was agreement between the investi-
gators for all themes. The primary themes were identified in the
compensable groups, while the secondary themes were identified
in both the compensable and non-compensable groups. The
secondary themes did not specifically relate to compensation.
Participants also had different views about compensation,
depending on whether or not they had a claim. The themes
are illustrated in table 2, and with anonymous quotes from
participants.
Injustice
Participants, particularly those not at fault, were angry and
upset about being involved in a crash:
“I was the not at fault party so it’s really turned my life inside out.”
(Group 5)
“And what is upsetting also, the whole time that I was in hospital
and the whole 12 months I was recovering, he was driving around.”
(Group 1)
Table 1 Participant profile in the eight focus groups (n¼34)
Variable
Compensable
(n[21)
Non-compensable
(n[13)
Age (years, range) 18e77 25e73
Gender
Male 15 12
Female 6 1
Injury severity score (median, range) 10, 6e43 9, 4e25
Time since injury (years, range) 2e72e6
Education
Primary school 1
Secondary school or less 11 5
Certificate/diploma 4 4
Bachelor degree or higher 5 1
Occupation
Managers, administrators; and professionals 1 1
Associate professionals 3 3
Tradespersons; and advanced clerical and
service workers
22
Intermediate clerical, sales, and service
workers; and intermediate production and
transport workers
22
Elementary clerical, sales, and service
workers; and labourers
33
Motor vehicle crash 15 8
Motorcycle crash 6 5
Injury Prevention 2011;17:222e227. doi:10.1136/ip.2010.029546 223
Original article
group.bmj.com on December 6, 2015 - Published by http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/Downloaded from

“I was an innocent victim.doing absolutely nothing wrong and I
was hit by someone who was drunk.the rest of my life is stuffed.”
(Group 4)
Entitlement
There was a strong sense of entitlement to financial compen-
sation, which was influenced by perceived injury severity and
disability:
“Like I’m buckled, I want money, that’s it.”(Group 4)
“They tried to give me $100 000 but my solicitor said no, you’ve
been badly damaged.”(Group 1)
“They make lots of money and I get very little.”(Group 5)
Claims process
Participants felt the claims process was adversarial and stressful,
particularly communication and treatment approvals, and that
the negotiating settlement was gruelling:
“I was using their lack of communication against them..the big
strain of trying to deal with them not talking to each other.I
went through nine Workers Compensation managers in three and
half years.”(Group 8)
“I’ve had to see a lot of different doctors every time I needed
something approved it was like a fight.”(Group 4)
“Dealing with the insurance company, they not only make you
jump through hoops but they’re on fire. Just to get some medication
or something.it will take weeks to approve.”(Group 8)
“Now we’re at the finer point of trying to settle and they’re just
procrastinating, dragging it out for as long as possible in order to
maximise my financial hardship and to pressure me to take a lesser
settlement.”(Group 5)
“They offer you a ridiculous amount. So low, but you get to the
point where you get sick of it.just give me what you want, I just
want to get out of here.”(Group 8)
Although the cost burden was eased by access to paid treat-
ment it didn’t hasten injury recovery:
“You don’t have to worry about bills.”(Group 1)
“The money helped of course.but it had nothing to do with my
recovery.”(Group 5)
Legal representation
Another consensus theme was the necessity of legal represen-
tation to navigate the claims process, receive reasonable
compensation, and have awareness of changes to regulations or
legislation:
“I thought there’s no way I could have done this on my own.”
(Group 4)
“The solicitor power negotiates everything you need.If you go
to the insurance company yourself you get nothing because
they know that you don’t know what to say or what to do.”
(Group 8)
“Another pro with a solicitor is that they’re up to date with and in
touch with any legislation change.So if I was doing it myself.I
wouldn’t have known.”(Group 8)
“You don’t know what you’re entitled to you don’t know how to
say things.”(Group 1)
“Don’t know who lies more, the insurance company or the solicitor
sometimes, but the good thing about having a lawyer is that they
know the games the insurance companies play.”(Group 8)
However, participants did see negative aspects, such as
competency and high fees:
“It’s a worry when you’ve got a solicitor and you’re not
working.you can see the solicitor’s fees going up.”(Group 1)
“I ditched my lawyer. I 100% percent believe that if I didn’t ditch
her she wasn’t going to do anything for me.”(Group 4)
“My solicitor would have been happy if I shut the doors of my
business.that would have been the best outcome for my
compensation because that’s all he’s thinking about.”(Group 8)
“The solicitor has taken awful lot of money. I had to pay the
amount up front.”(Group 5)
Medico-legal assessments
Medico-legal assessments were unanimously disliked. These
assessments are arranged by insurers, defendant or plaintiff
lawyers with health professionals (usually medical practitioners)
to provide an opinion about factors such as diagnosis or future
treatment. Participants felt the value of such assessments was
questionable:
“Then you start going forward, your doctors first then you go to
their doctors to discredit those doctors.”(Group 8)
“I had one writing 50% and even I know I am not 50%, and another
writing 10 or 11 percent and that’s all within a month of each
other.”(Group 8)
“Their doctor says there is nothing wrong with you.my doctor
says I’m stuffed up, who’s correct. Show me an honest doctor in
this industry.It’s all about the dollar, I can go and pay this doctor
1800 bucks and he’ll tell me I’m buggered for life.”(Group 4)
“I started this circus of going to see different doctors, first the
doctors that actually cared.and then started the doctors that were
in it for the industry.I’ve so far seen ten specialists that couldn’t
give a rat’s about my condition, they’re only there to write a report,
and I find that extremely difficult, I know how business works, it’s
a game that has been set up with perhaps good intentions, but
a bad outcome.”(Group 4)
“The barrister comes.but I need you to answer this, this, this and
this. So you’ve got to back through the same questions again. It’s
a $1000 every time you go.”(Group 5)
In addition, the practicalities such as number, frequency,
duration, and cost of assessments annoyed many participants.
Table 2 Primary and secondary themes
Theme
Primary A strong sense of injustice
A strong sense of entitlement
Difficult claims and settlement process
An inability to move on with life during the claims process
An extreme dislike of medico-legal assessments
Necessity of legal representation to assist with the claims process
A perceived lack of trust about having to prove an injury or disability
Secondary Significance of trauma experience
Importance of family and social support
Financial hardship and difficult return to work if self-employed
224 Injury Prevention 2011;17:222e227. doi:10.1136/ip.2010.029546
Original article
group.bmj.com on December 6, 2015 - Published by http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/Downloaded from

Lack of trust
Participants perceived there was disbelief by insurers and some
health professionals about their injuries. It was obligatory to
prove you had an injury or disability:
“It’s one thing to try and cope with an injury, it’s another thing to
cope with people who try to call you a liar, like you can do this, you
can do that.”(Group 4)
“Dealing with the insurance company your life’s on hold, you can’t
do anything for fear they’re looking over your shoulder, that
they’re going to interpret something as ‘there’s nothing wrong
with you’.”(Group 5)
“You ’ve got to go through a different type of trauma, mentally and
emotionally when they go through your life.being self-employed
they want to go through all my books and records for the last seven
years.if we don’t do it, it’s saying to the insurance company that
we’re hiding something.”(Group 8)
“I’m working, so what are you doing following me around with
a camera for.it makes me feel like I’m doing something wrong,
like I’m trying to rort the system.”(Group 4)
Inability to move on with life
There was consensus among participants that the claims process
meant constantly being reminded about the crash and restrained
their lives:
“It’s been so long.I’ve spoken about my case so many times, I’m
getting to a point I’m sick of it.”(Group 4)
“We settled because I didn’t want to put my life on hold anymore.”
(Group 5)
“You go to a doctor for your legal team and a doctor for the insurance
company, and they question you about every aspect of your life and
you have to relive the accident.and although I want to get over it
all.I should move on, but it’s something that changes your whole
life, and it will never be over in one way.”(Group 4)
“They destroy your life, you’ve gone through such a traumatic
period with recovery.I’ve suffered depression and all sorts of
problems like that. And you just start to get on top of that. I’ve had
my claim denied three times.”(Group 8)
Significance of trauma
Many participants had sustained severe injuries, and regardless
of whether or not they had a compensation claim, they found
the experience of the crash traumatic:
“I remember the chopper coming to take me away from the
accident, then I waited for a period of time in emergency.I was in
and out of consciousness.”(Group 3)
“I probably shouldn’t be here because the worst thing about it all
was I was completely abandoned, no one ever tried to come and
help me.”(Group 6)
“I lost the use of hand for about 6 months .I was thinking all
doom and gloom my hand is never going to come back but.I
learnt how to use it again.”(Group 2)
“Immediately before the impact I knew that I was going to be
killed. And it’s amazing that I wasn’t, however, that didn’t stop the
ongoing emotional effect that had on me, knowing that I was going
to die, and I still haven’t got past that yet.”(Group 4)
“Well I was in the wrong, I hit a woman, she perished. That is the
thing I have got here for the rest of my life. Every second night I
think about it.”
“Psychologically it was all very taxing, all of a sudden I had to
worry about income, the doctor telling me it would be a few
months before I was able to walk and to work.”(Group 8)
Family and social support
Strong family and social support was valued by all participants:
“My youngest took time off her studies and she looked after
me.my family were excellent.”(Group 1)
“I was probably very, very lucky that I had a partner because
without her, yeah probably wouldn’t have been able to do it
myself.”(Group 7)
“When you have that help, psychologically it makes things so
much better and I think you heal better too.”(Group 6)
“I am very lucky I have very good neighbours and they helped me
such a lot. I couldn’t have managed.I’m on my own”(Group 1)
Financial hardship if self-employed
All self-employed participants struggled physically and finan-
cially with return to work. They felt unsupported and either
returned to work early given the severity of their injuries or
sustained significant financial losses:
“I had to employ someone else to help me.I had to keep working
no matter what.”(Group 2)
“I’m self-employed. I didn’t get back to my business for over
400 days.”(Group 8)
“I have my own business so I had to get back and get things
running. So I had an odd assortment of crutches.”(Group 4)
“I lost my business and didn’t have proper income protection,
foreclosed on the house.”(Group 5)
Other issues: comparison of claim and no claim
Although participants with a claim felt it was beneficial to have
access to paid treatment, they felt it was an extremely stressful
experience:
“They definitely would have less stress during that process that we
go through, they would just miss out on some financial backing.”
(Group 4)
“You haven’t got the psychological pressure the insurance company
is putting you under. And that’s their game. Apply as much
psychological pressure as we can to get you to settle.”(Group 5)
“Making you out to be a liar even though they don’t say it, but
basically that is what the report says when you read it.That’s
difficult and so the person that’s not having a compensation claim,
they don’t have that to face.”(Group 4)
“I didn’t have to pay any of my bills.”(Group 1)
“I know if I didn’t have insurance I probably wouldn’t have ended
up with some of the treatments I did.”(Group 8)
Participants without a compensation claim felt it would not
have affected their recovery but assisted with costs:
“It would have been nice to forget the expenses.”(Group 3)
“It would have taken away the duress.no money coming in while
you were off.”(Group 7)
“Financially it would have given me a bit of relief because I was
losing a couple of jobs as it was.”(Group 6)
Injury Prevention 2011;17:222e227. doi:10.1136/ip.2010.029546 225
Original article
group.bmj.com on December 6, 2015 - Published by http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/Downloaded from

“I don’t see how compensation would have made any difference to
my recovery really.”(Group 2)
“I don’t think it would make much difference to me really. I was on
a pension and I had no one to sue.”(Group 3)
DISCUSSION
This study explored the influence of claims and legal processes
on injury recovery following a motor vehicle crash. We found
that the injury recovery experience was difficult for all
people, but it was particularly stressful for people claiming
compensation. These results provide additional insight into
why compensation factors affect people’s health following
injury.
346715
Participants ‘not at fault’felt a strong sense of injustice
and entitlement linked to financial compensation, often as
a reward. Other studies have reported the influence of perceived
injustice on post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), pain, and
disability.
9 16 17
Findings from this study support the notion that
perceived injustice is a multidimensional construct. We also
found that people perceived blame, unfairness, injury severity,
and irreparability of loss were linked to a sense of entitlement.
16
Compensable participants expressed the view that the claims
process was adversarial, particularly for longer claims. Other
studies have shown that having a compensation claim, legisla-
tive change, and negotiating settlement can alter psychological
and physical outcomes.
1278
The difficulties reported by participants in communicating
with insurers, high staff turnover, and obtaining treatment
approvals have been less well demonstrated in the literature.
While this could relate specifically to New South Wales, it is
likely to also apply to other compensation schemes.
On the other hand, legal representation has been shown across
a number of different jurisdictions and injuries to be an indicator
of poorer outcomes.
1 7 8 15 18 19
We found that participants
believed they required legal representation to negotiate with
insurers and steer them through the claims process despite often
disliking the involvement of a lawyer. It is difficult to know
whether this is because of the claims process or personal choice
because not all participants were legally represented. However,
the importance of competent legal representation for many
claiming compensation indicates that the claims process is
a factor when determining whether to engage a lawyer.
Similarly, medico-legal assessments add complexity to the
claims process. In this study, compensable participants disliked
attending assessments for either party. Repeated attendance was
also associated with anger and a lack of trust by others of
a genuine injury or disability. This is an interesting finding and
to the authors’knowledge has not been reported previously.
Studies examining medico-legal assessments have focused on
reporting standards or medical impairment rather than their
impact on people’s health.
20e22
This lack of trust led to distress and a sense of frustration, and
when coupled with dissatisfaction of the claims process, meant
many participants felt unable to move on with life. This is
supported by other studies which show higher levels of
disability and poor psychological health during the life of
a claim.
3823
Despite having similar difficulties with injury recovery phys-
ically, people without a compensation claim did not report
ongoing frustrations with limited life progress or increased
psychological stress. Many returned to work and other activities
out of necessity. This has also been shown in research where
there is a non-compensable comparison group.
3815
In addition, there were several themes across both compen-
sable and non-compensable groups. Self-employed participants
declared financial hardship as a key motivator for early return to
work. This could be partly because many participants were
manual workers, or that financial hardship is worse for CTP
claimants in New South Wales, where there is limited avail-
ability of financial assistance. However, research shows that
return to work is influenced by multiple occupational, work-
place, and compensation factors.
24e26
Other themes included that many participants found the
trauma experience distressing, and strong family and social
support aided their recovery. This is comparable to other
research, which shows that a greater perceived threat to life and
limited support networks are associated with poorer
outcomes.
27e29
Finally, comparing the two groups, the difference lay in their
perception of the claims process and its impact on injury
recovery, particularly access to financial compensation and
treatment, and psychological stress.
These findings provide supporting evidence that compensa-
tion factors impact on injury recovery following a motor vehicle
crash. The themes provide new information about what specific
factors might affect people’s health beyond the broad indicators
of claim type, duration, and cost. These themes support the
notion that specific aspects of the claims and legal process could
impact on people’s health following injury.
The findings provide potential opportunities to develop new
policy and scheme design that aims to reduce the adversarial
nature of the claims process and simplify the regulatory envi-
ronment, particularly related to medico-legal assessments, legal
representation, and claims settlement. However, due to the
diversity of compensable schemes, the applicability of these
findings to other jurisdictions may vary depending on scheme
design. Generalisability may also be limited as the participants
sustained serious injuries and were treated by a single metro-
politan trauma service in NSW. In addition, there was greater
What is already known on the subject
<Compensation factors have been shown to affect the health
status of people following injury.
<Currently compensation factors are primarily sourced from
administrative databases and provide limited insight into
exactly how the claims and legal process influences injury
recovery.
What this study adds
<Participants with a compensation claim often sought legal
representation to assist in an adversarial and stressful claims
and legal process and, if not at fault, felt entitled to
recompense.
<Compensated participants perceived they were not trusted,
and felt frustrated attending multiple medico-legal assess-
ments, which contributed to an inability to progress with life.
<Researchers should consider a more complex assessment of
compensation factors when investigating a compensable
population, and policy makers have a responsibility to address
the adversarial aspects of scheme design.
226 Injury Prevention 2011;17:222e227. doi:10.1136/ip.2010.029546
Original article
group.bmj.com on December 6, 2015 - Published by http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/Downloaded from

recruitment of compensable participants, who possibly attended
because of their negative experiences. However, by using quali-
tative methods we gained valuable insight into compensation
factors, which would not have been possible otherwise. Other
strengths include careful conduct of the focus groups using
established methodology and similar themes being identified by
each group.
Additional research is needed to explore the injury recovery
experience with different injuries and socio-demographic back-
grounds, and in other compensable schemes, to identify any
shared themes. Furthermore, these findings need to be explored
in larger quantitative studies.
In conclusion, people in this study with a compensation claim
reported a more complex and stressful injury recovery experience
than people without a compensation claim.
Acknowledgements We acknowledge Erica Caldwell for assistance with trauma
registry data.
Competing interests None.
Ethics approval This study was conducted with the approval of the Sydney South
West Area Health Service Human Research Committee and University of Sydney
Human Research Ethics Committee.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
REFERENCES
1. Cassidy D, Carroll L, Cote P, et al. Effect of eliminating compensation for pain and
suffering on the outcome of insurance claims for whiplash injury. N Engl J Med
2000;342:1179e86.
2. Cameron ID, Rebbeck T, Sindhusake D, et al. Legislative change is associated with
improved health status in people with whiplash. Spine 2008;33:250e4.
3. Gabbe B, Cameron P, Williamson O, et al. The relationship between compensable
status and long-term patient outcomes following orthopaedic trauma. Med J Aust
2007;187:14e17.
4. Harris I, Mulford J, Solomon M, et al. Association between compensation status
and outcome after surgery, a meta-analysis. JAMA 2005;293:1644e52.
5. Scholten-Peeters GGM, Verhagen AP, Bekkering GE, et al. Prognostic factors of
whiplash-associated disorders: a systematic review of prospective cohort studies.
Pain 2003;104:303e22.
6. Williamson O, Gabbe B, Cameron P, et al. Predictors of moderate or severe pain 6
months after orthopaedic injury: a prospective cohort study. J Orthop Trauma
2009;23:139e44.
7. Gun RT, Osti OL, O’Riordan A, et al. Risk factors for prolonged disability after
whiplash injury: a prospective study. Spine 2005;30:386e91.
8. Harris IA, Young JM, Rae H, et al. Predictors of general health after major trauma.
J Trauma 2008;64:969e74.
9. Sullivan MJL, Thibault P, Simmonds MJ, et al. Pain, perceived injustice and the
persistence of post-traumatic stress symptoms during the course of rehabilitation for
whiplash injuries. Pain 2009;145:325e31.
10. Baker SP, O’Neill B, Haddon W Jr, et al. The injury severity score: a method for
describing patients with multiple injuries and evaluating emergency care. J Trauma
1974;14:187e96.
11. Glaser BG, Strauss AL. The Discovery Of Grounded Theory: Strategies For Qualitative
Research. Chicago: Aldine, 1967.
12. Krippendorff K. Content Analysis: An Introduction to Methodology. 2nd edn.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2004.
13. Australian Standard Classification of Occupations (ASCO), Cat.no. 1220.0: Australian
Bureau of Statistics, 1997.
14. Australian Standard Classification of Education (ASCED), Cat.no. 1272.0. Australian
Bureau of Statistics, 2001.
15. MacKenzie EJ, Bosse MJ, Pollak AN, et al. Long-term persistence of disability
following severe lower-limb trauma. Results of a seven-year follow-up. J Bone Joint
Surg Am 2005;87:1801e9.
16. Sullivan M, Adams H, Horan S, et al. The role of perceived injustice in the
experience of chronic pain and disability: scale development and validation. J Occup
Rehabil 2008;18:249e61.
17. Ehlers A, Mayou RA, Bryant B. Psychological predictors of chronic posttraumatic
stress disorder after motor vehicle accidents. J Abnorm Psychol 1998;107:508e19.
18. Reynolds S, Paniak C, Toller-Lobe G, et al. A longitudinal study of compensation-
seeking and return to work in a treated mild traumatic brain injury sample. J Head
Trauma Rehabil 2003;18:139e47.
19. Bhandari M, Busse J, Hanson B, et al. Psychological distress and quality of life after
orthopaedic trauma: an observational study. Can J of Surg 2008;51:15e22.
20. Large M, Nielssen O. An audit of medico-legal reports prepared for claims of
psychiatric injury following motor vehicle accidents. Aust N Z J Psychiatry
2001;35:535e40.
21. Cornes P, Aitken RC. Medical reports on persons claiming compensation for
personal injury. J R Soc Med 1992;85:329e33.
22. Holm L, Cassidy JD, Sjogren Y, et al. Impairment and work disability due to
whiplash injury following traffic collisions. An analysis of insurance material
from the Swedish Road Traffic Injury Commission. Scand J Public Health
1999;27:116e23.
23. Rebbeck T, Sindhusake D, Cameron ID, et al. A prospective cohort study of health
outcomes following whiplash associated disorders in an Australian population.
Inj Prev 2006;12:93e8.
24. Foreman P, Murphy G, Swerissen H. Barriers and facilitators to return to work:
A literature review. Melbourne: Australian Institute for Primary Care, La Trobe
University, 2006.
25. MacKenzie EJ, Bosse MJ, Kellam JF, et al. Early predictors of long-term work
disability after major limb trauma. J Trauma 2006;61:688e94.
26. Hou W-H, Tsauo J-Y, Lin C-H, et al. Worker’s compensation and return-to-work
following orthopaedic injury to extremities. J Rehabil Med 2008;40:440e5.
27. McCarthy ML, MacKenzie EJ, Edwin D, et al. Psychological distress associated with
severe lower-limb injury. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2003;85-A:1689e97.
28. Holbrook TL, Hoyt DB, Stein MB, et al. Perceived threat to life predicts
posttraumatic stress disorder after major trauma: risk factors and functional
outcome. J Trauma 2001;51:287e92.
29. Mock C, Mackenzie E, Jurkovich G, et al. Determinants of disability after lower
extremity fracture. J Trauma 2000;49:1002e11.
Injury Prevention 2011;17:222e227. doi:10.1136/ip.2010.029546 227
Original article
group.bmj.com on December 6, 2015 - Published by http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/Downloaded from

injuries: a qualitative study
recovery from severe motor vehicle crash
Understanding the effect of compensation on
Darnel F Murgatroyd, Ian D Cameron and Ian A Harris
doi: 10.1136/ip.2010.029546
2011 17: 222-227 originally published online November 11, 2010Inj Prev
http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/17/4/222
Updated information and services can be found at:
These include:
References #BIBLhttp://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/17/4/222
This article cites 24 articles, 3 of which you can access for free at:
service
Email alerting box at the top right corner of the online article.
Receive free email alerts when new articles cite this article. Sign up in the
Notes
http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions
To request permissions go to:
http://journals.bmj.com/cgi/reprintform
To order reprints go to:
http://group.bmj.com/subscribe/
To subscribe to BMJ go to:
group.bmj.com on December 6, 2015 - Published by http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/Downloaded from