“According to the plaintiff, as a consequence of this incident, he refers to having suffered injuries consisting of whiplash, with a healing period of 90 days, of which 54 are preventative, and 3 points for sequelae consisting of post-traumatic vertebral pain, plus 10% correction factor, which claims.
The judgment of the first instance dismissed that claim in its entirety because it had been proved, objective data, the lack of intensity in the merited collision, which revealed a lack of a causal link between the accident and the injuries and sequels that are said to have suffered, added the lack credibility of the statements of the witness Mr. Arcadio, the plaintiff’s co-worker, which led to the dismissal of the lawsuit for simulation of the accident. Against this judgment, the plaintiff appeals and the defendant contests it, basing his appeal on imputing error in the evaluation of the evidence to the judgment of the first instance (…).
In this sense, this court of appeal considers, first of all, the emergency medical report of the same date and minutes after the incident to be completely relevant, in which, after the medical examination, a “cervical smear” produced in traffic accident, diagnosis that coincides with that of the medical expert Mr. Jerónimo. The fact that whiplash is not an objectifiable injury, but by reference to the injured person, does not reveal its absence if it is taken into account that the emergency physician explored the patient and makes a diagnosis on the matter and, in the case, the The immediacy of emergency medical assistance also highlights the occurrence of the injured injury resulting from the car accident.
Likewise, admitted by the judgment of the first instance that, even given the small entity of the collision, an injury such as whiplash may occur, the biomechanical expert on which the medical expert Mr. Pedro based by the defendant insurer is based, according to the rules of sound criticism, it should not have the intended consideration, since it is based on the biomechanical report whose conclusion is alien to the aforementioned jurisprudential doctrine, that is to say, it cannot be ruled out that even the scarce entity of the collision produces a injury such as the one diagnosed in the Bellvitge Hospital emergency report to the actor ”.
Basic personal injury in case of temporary injuries (Table 3.A)
Basic personal injury due to temporary injury is the common injury suffered from the date of the accident to the end of the healing process or until the injury is stabilized and converted into a sequel. Its economic valuation is determined by the daily amount established in Table 3.A.
(*) The tables from now on are updated to 2020, in accordance with the Resolution of March 30, 2020, of the Directorate General of Insurance and Pension Funds, by which the amounts of the compensation are published updated system for valuation of damages caused to people in road accidents.