> I can't imagine how an extrication could cause a cord injury, if it
> wasn't
> already there following the RTA, Nick. That would presuppose an injury
> of
> such violence as to produce an unstable cervical spine yet stopping
> short of
> actual cord injury, followed by an extrication attempt which then
> pushed the
> c-spine further to produce the cord injury. Common sense would dictate
> that
> this is a most unlikely scenario, and I expect most courts would agree.
>
> In other words, paralysis following RTA with extrication is highly
> likely to
> have occurred as a result of the RTA, not the extrication. If the
> energy of
> the accident was sufficient to fracture the vertebrae and rupture the
> interspinous ligaments, it's hardly going to be insufficient to damage
> the,
> now unsupported, spinal cord. And the test in civil law relies on the
> balance of probabilities, so as long as the former is more likely than
> the
> latter (>50%) then a court will find in favour of the former scenario.
>
> Adrian Fogarty
Taking this to its logical conclusion, we should not be collaring anyone. No lesions will be apparent
after the removal from the vehicle that were not occult before the removal. Therefore the damage to
the neck or back will be complete from the crash so we won't make it any worse.
I'm not sure any body of expert opinion would be comfortable with that at all, Adrian, and in my
career I have seen TWO people who lost function after extrication. The second was particularly
shocking - it was a young male who came in very drunk after a crash but neurologically normal. He
insisted on getting up to go and have a cigarette - kept taking the blocks off, wriggling and so on. He
finally broke away from everyone trying to hold him, sat up, swung his legs over the side and went to
stand up. His legs gave way, he collapsed on the floor and was paraplegic from that moment.
Best wishes,
Rowley Cottingham
[log in to unmask]
http://www.emergencyunit.com
|