V.P. Nathan & Partners, acting for a major Malaysian insurer in a complex bodily injury matter, successfully contained a RM12 million prosthetics-driven claim to a settlement of RM3 million plus 10% costs — by establishing that the primary device being claimed was clinically unusable by the plaintiff who sought it.
The Case
The plaintiff had suffered a trans-humeral amputation with a complete brachial plexus injury. His claim was anchored on two expensive items: a state-of-the-art myoelectric prosthetic arm, and a lifetime supply of custom-made knee braces — both projected over a full remaining lifespan to arrive at a figure exceeding RM12 million.
The Myoelectric Arm: A Device That Could Not Be Used
Myoelectric prosthetic systems require the user to generate consistent, coordinated antagonistic muscle signals to drive individual functions — elbow flexion, wrist rotation, hand open and close. In this case, the plaintiff had a complete brachial plexus injury with minimal active shoulder movement. The defendant’s appointed prosthetist confirmed that the plaintiff was unlikely to effectively utilise any functional prosthesis in his current condition. V.P. Nathan & Partners advanced this position firmly: the myoelectric arm was a theoretical technological option, not a clinically necessary prescription.
The Knee Brace: Wrong Assumptions, Wrong Costs
V.P. Nathan & Partners identified that the Donjoy Defiance brace specified in the plaintiff’s quotation carries a five-year manufacturer warranty in Malaysia. The assumption of yearly replacement — which had been used to inflate the lifetime cost projection — was therefore unrealistic and commercially unsustainable before the court.
Outcome
Through clinical analysis, expert evidence management, and disciplined pre-trial negotiation, V.P. Nathan & Partners brought a RM12 million claim to a settlement of RM3 million plus 10% costs — a reduction of more than 75%.