There are several scenarios here. You will go back to work in a period of time, you will go back to work would not be able to do the job you’ve been doing, you may be permanently disabled are not able to ever do the job you’re doing. Whichever of those applies depend on the evidence.
Unless you can get the medical expert/orthopaedic surgeon to say that as a result of these injuries you’re never likely to do this job again, then the court would take it that you would be able to do the job. Without the medical evidence the whole thing falls over regardless of how you feel. Medical evidence is central.
If you were to go back to work in say, 3 years time, and not be able to work in between, but your loss of earnings would be the loss of earnings, less any benefits, between the accident and when you go back to work.
If you go back to work doing a lesser job or can’t go back at all, then there is an actuarial calculation based upon what are called the Ogden tables which looks at your age now, normal retirement age and then comes up with a multiplier.
They are not particularly easy to follow but as a person with a Physics doctorate you should be able to get your head round them. They are not easy to follow.
this is only in respect of loss of earnings, and nothing to do with pain and suffering which is on top of this. However, when you hear of these million pound payouts, for people with brain damage or having lost limbs, the largest amount of money is because of loss of earnings over a protracted period of time not for the actual injury itself.
What complicates the settlement in your case is the division of liability between the first party and the second party because clearly, the second accident exacerbated the first accident and it would come down to the medical evidence as to your condition immediately before the second accident as to how the 2 were apportioned.
Can I clarify anything for you?
Please don’t forget to rate the service positive. It’s an important part of the process by which experts get paid.