Richard Davenport, a UK track and field rising star, recently brought suit against his former trainer and coach David Farrow in the UK courts due to a back injury he claimed he suffered while under Farrow’s supervision and care. The courts were unreceptive to Davenport’s claims, and failed to find Farrow liable for Davenport’s injuries.
Davenport’s contractual relationship with Farrow began in 2004, after several years of coaching and management informally, where the court noted that “it is common ground that he would see the claimant for training two to three times a week, and would talk to him by telephone on an almost daily basis.” In 2001, Davenport was invited to join UK Athletics’ program for athletes with world class potential. The 2004 contract formalized the athlete-coach relationship, and placed a formal duty on Farrow to “provide coaching and advice” to Davenport, “includ[ing] advice on fitness, health, diet and training schedules, strength and track training schedules, mobility work, injury prevention and rehabilitation…” among other things.
Following the parties’ contract, Davenport went on to enjoy a successful running career, competing for Great Britain in the 400 meters and 4 x 100 meters relay. He also represented Great Britain against Australia, and competed in the World Junior Championships. Shortly thereafter, he traveled to South Africa for three weeks of high altitude training in October/November 2004. The following winter, he competed regularly, setting personal records three times. After several more successes, in May 2005, Davenport and Farrow parted ways and Davenport gave Farrow formal notice terminating their agreement. Davenport continued to race until August 2005.
In October 2005, Davenport began attending Loughborough University, training at the University for two weeks before classes began. Davenport was allegedly experiencing back pain in training sessions, and was referred to a sports physician at Loughborough. It was discovered through an MRI that Davenport had bilateral spondyloloyses at L5, which are stress fractures of the L5 vertebrae. In dispute was the period of time when Davenport suffered these injuries: whether it was during his contract period with Farrow, or not.
The court turned first to the issue of whether or not Davenport’s claim that the fractures were sustained in October/November 2004 was supported by evidence. “If the fractures developed at an earlier stage, then there could be no causal relationship between the alleged failure on the part of the defendant to respond to the claimant’s complaints of back pain during the relevant period, and the injury, loss and damage for which the claimant contends,” wrote the court. It then turned to the testimony of two expert witnesses, both spinal surgeons, for guidance. The surgeons “also agreed that it is impossible to state with certainty when the claimant suffered his stress fractures, but disagreed in the conclusions that they drew from the available material.”
Detrimental to Davenport’s claim was the evidence that he had seen osteopathic professionals both in 1999 and 2001 for back stiffness, limited extension of the lumbar spine, and para-spinal muscle spasms. However, Davenport claimed that his spondyloyses began during high altitude training in South Africa in 2004. The opinion of one of the expert witness surgeons was that if Davenport “had developed an acute stress fracture at that time, he would have had to cease training for at least a month, probably longer, he would have not been able to return to competing for six months… Davenport had no break from training and continued to compete at the highest level.” The other expert believed that Davenport’s increased intensity of back pain after 2004 was caused by the training in South Africa.
After examining expert witness testimony, the court turned to evidence in Davenport’s medical records. The records showed that he was treated by doctors for tightness in the lower back beginning in late 2002. By early 2005, the doctor recommended that Davenport see his chiropractor after noticing that the L3/L4 vertebrae in his back were sore and tender. The doctor repeated this advice twice in the next few visits, but Davenport did not follow it.
The court came to the conclusion that the bilateral L5 vertebral fractures occurred at an earlier stage than they occurred in October/November 2004. No single factor led to this conclusion, but the court gave its principal reasons as follows:
(1) Davenport’s “evident uncertainty as to when he first began to experience significant symptoms serve[d] to undermine the hypothesis that there was an acute spondyloyses occurring during the first three week period that he spent in South Africa in October 2004.”
(2) “[H]is case was advanced upon the basis that the probable cause of an acute spondyloyses was a marked increase in the intensity of his training from September 2004.” The court accepted the defendant’s claim that it was a moderate increase from the same period in the prior year, which was not significantly more than what Davenport had done in the past.
(3) Davenport did not mention the resulting symptoms to his trainers while in South Africa, or to his sports physician in November 2004, who he visited twice.
(4) He did not follow the physician’s advice to see his chiropractor in early 2005. “Had he been suffering in the manner that he now describes, he would surely have followed the advice, bearing in mind that he had previously consulted the chiropractor,” the court wrote.
The lead justice, in reaching his final conclusion, stated, “I accept, that the records are entirely consistent with the fractures having occurred at a much earlier stage. They fit the pattern of a chronic spondyloyses with fluctuating symptoms.” Additionally, Justice Owen wrote, “I give weight to the unchallenged evidence from [the first expert witness physician] that the appearance of the fractures in the scans taken in September 2005 demonstrated long standing old spondyloyses which had certainly been there for more than nine months and ‘had probably been present for several years’”(italics omitted).
“In my judgment the claimant has failed to discharge the burden of proving that on the balance of probabilites, the bilateral L5 stress fractures occurred in October/November 2004. It follows that the…claim must fail,” concluded the court.
Davenport v. Farrow, Case No: 7LS90220 [2010] EWHC 550 (QB)
Jonathan Hand (instructed by Messrs Irwin Mitchell) for the Claimant
Timothy Meakin (instructed by Messrs Kennedys) for the Defendant
