7 C
New York
Tuesday, October 15, 2024

‘Instagram doesn’t reflect pain’ – Yoga teacher who did headstands while suffering neck pain settles injury claim

‘Instagram doesn’t reflect pain’ – Yoga teacher who did headstands while suffering neck pain settles injury claim

Ms Justice Leonie Reynolds said she was satisfied plaintiff had a ‘two-year injury’

Chloe Geraghty (28), from Co Dublin, sued for personal injuries following a minor rear-ending collision at a roundabout in June 2017.

The young woman claims she has had pain in the left side of her neck and shoulder since the incident over seven years ago.

While the driver of the car which rear-ended Ms Geraghty admitted liability, the defendant’s legal team had argued that it was a collision of “no consequence” and accused the plaintiff of not sustaining an injury.

She denied this and insisted she still experiences pain to this day.

Counsel for the defendant questioned her about photographs on her Instagram page which showed her participating in a range of physical activities in the years after the accident.

She said she attended Crossfit, Muay Thai boxing and yoga classes in Thailand in 2019 to try and build back up her personal strength.

In one photo published in 2021, where she was performing a headstand, she advised her followers in the caption not to attempt the movement if suffering from a neck injury.

Moira Flahive SC, for the defendant, asked why Ms Geraghty posted this advice when she claimed she was experiencing neck pain at the time.

She replied that she was willing to “endure some discomfort” as it was her livelihood and “these kinds of posts are what gets people clicking on your page”.

“Nobody wants to see people sitting in a cross-legged pose,” she said.

“An Instagram post doesn’t reflect the pain I endured after the class. I did suffer after.”

When the case came before Ms Justice Leonie Reynolds last Friday, she said she was satisfied that the plaintiff suffered a two-year injury.

On Tuesday, when the case was due to resume with more evidence, Ms Justice Reynolds was notified that the matter had been settled.

She said she was glad “some sense had prevailed” and that expert witnesses were not brought back for a second day which would have increased costs.

The court previously heard how Ms Geraghty attended her GP a week after the accident.

She said she felt a “bit stiff” on the left side but presumed it would go away. She said she was reluctant to go to a doctor, but decided to get it checked out a week later.

The rear-ending accident occurred while she was at a roundabout in Dundrum.

At the time, she was working as a personal shopper which involved sourcing luxury items, such as limited edition Louis Vuitton bags, for clients.

She would travel to Paris to collect them and then charge commission to deliver bags and clothing to customers in Ireland.

On June 8, 2017, she was driving to Dundrum with a friend to drop off goods to a client. When she came off the M50 motorway, she headed down a slip road and stopped at a roundabout when she was impacted from behind.

In her evidence, she claimed she was shunted forward “about half a metre”.

The driver of the car, Eoin Carroll, who was insured with RSA Insurance, got out of the car to apologise and gave Ms Geraghty a piece of paper with his contact details.

She said “there was quite a bang” and she was in shock following the incident.

A claim of €1,234 for material damages was submitted to Mr Carroll’s insurance company.

“I still have pain in my shoulder today and still have to manage that every day,” she said.

“That’s the truth I’m living with”.

Ms Flahive put it to her that she did not go back to her doctor for another 13 months when she had to get a medical report for her personal injury claim.

Ms Geraghty said she also attended physio sessions and started attending the Hermitage Clinic in Dublin because her pain had started to get progressively worse after working remotely as a fashion buyer during the Covid-19 pandemic.

She received an injection for pain at the clinic in May 2021 to help, but said she did not get much relief from it so decided not to get any further injections.

Ms Flahive asked her if she didn’t get any relief, how she was able to engage in difficult yoga poses two months later which she posted on Instagram.

“I was in pain after. I’ve been trying not to let the accident hold me back and pushed my body more than I should have,” she said.

Ms Geraghty said she has to take painkillers every day and had not been told by doctors to stop exercising.

She was encouraged to participate in physical activity to prevent her neck getting stiff.

In the weeks after the accident, she had to be prescribed sleeping tablets and also some difene gel. She was diagnosed as having a soft tissue injury.

Under cross-examination, Ms Geraghty was asked why none of her Instagram posts mentioned her injury or the accident.

She responded that it is a “positive page” and she doesn’t like uploading negative content or personal information.

Her claim was brought before the High Court after it was dismissed in the Circuit Court because she didn’t attend the hearing.

Ms Geraghty’s counsel, Thomas Hogan SC, said she had missed a previous hearing because she was near the end of her pregnancy and couldn’t attend.

The case was adjourned until April 23 this year, but she also missed this date as she is now living in Spain and had to give her passport to the relevant authorities in order to get a birth certificate for her newborn son.

She said she trained to be a yoga teacher because she wanted to be able to rehabilitate other people who suffered from pain.

Ms Geraghty said sometimes she experiences pain if she takes her yoga poses “too far”.

Ms Justice Reynolds said there was no medical basis to say it was a five-year injury and she was satisfied that it was a “two-year injury at best”.

“There was no doubt lifestyle issues arose,” she said.

When she was notified of the case being settled, Ms Justice Reynolds vacated the order of the Circuit Court which had previously dismissed the proceedings and made an order for costs in favour of the plaintiff.

Source link

Related Articles

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Stay Connected

0FansLike
0FollowersFollow
0SubscribersSubscribe
- Advertisement -spot_img

Latest Articles