Man who sought nearly $3m over accident gets $10k, judge highlights bid to inflate claim
Source: Straits Times
Article Date: 03 May 2025
Author: Selina Lum
More than a decade after he was involved in a traffic accident in 2010, a man sought nearly $3 million in compensation from the other driver, alleging that the rear-end collision triggered a cascade of medical conditions.
More than a decade after he was involved in a traffic accident in 2010, a man sought nearly $3 million in compensation from the other driver, alleging that the rear-end collision triggered a cascade of medical conditions.
A district judge, however, said in a written judgment published on April 30 that the case revealed a calculated attempt to manufacture an inflated claim.
Despite being a bankrupt from 1999 to 2013, the plaintiff, Mr Andy Tan Poh Weng, who is now 54, selectively sought treatment at private specialists for conditions he could link to the 2010 accident.
In an attempt to inflate his claim, he falsified tax assessment notices by adding non-existent employment income in 2012 and tried to claim for expenses already paid for by government financial assistance schemes.
Mr Tan withheld his diagnosis of Stage 4 pancreatic cancer, knowing it would significantly reduce the amount he could justify claiming for future earnings.
The judge awarded Mr Tan, who is currently unemployed, just over $10,600 as fair compensation for his proven injuries and the expenses associated with these injuries.
District Judge Shen Wanqin said Mr Tan failed to prove that he experienced back pain in the immediate aftermath of the 2010 accident, and she found no basis to award the staggering quantum of damages he sought.
Mr Tan had been involved in a total of seven traffic accidents.
The current civil suit related to the fifth accident, which took place on May 26, 2010.
Mr Tan was driving a van when a bus driven by the defendant, Mr Jee Lee, rear-ended his vehicle.
After the accident, Mr Tan, who was then 39, was diagnosed with neck and right flank tenderness.
He was given painkillers and a three-day outpatient medical certificate, but returned to work immediately.
At the time, the self-employed air-conditioner subcontractor had pre-existing degenerative neck and spine conditions from two decades of manual labour.
His first documented complaint of back pain was on June 9, 2010.
He underwent spine fusion surgery in July 2011 to address his back pain, but it led to complications, and revision surgery was carried out in October that year.
He was involved in two more accidents, in October 2011 and January 2012.
In April 2012, he was diagnosed with major depressive disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder.
The cancer diagnosis came in June 2021.
He has not received any damages for the other accidents.
Mr Tan filed a civil suit against Mr Jee in June 2011.
In 2014, both sides agreed that the defendant was liable for 95 per cent of the assessed damages.
When the assessment of damages hearing started in 2024, the key issue was whether the 2010 accident aggravated Mr Tan's pre-existing conditions and caused his psychiatric conditions.
Mr Tan initially sought nearly $3 million. After more than 10 days of hearing involving numerous witnesses and exhibits, he scaled back the claim to $1.95 million.
The revised claim included $921,000 for pretrial loss of earnings and $707,900 for loss of future earnings.
The defendant offered about $8,800, contending that the 2010 accident caused only chest bruises, whiplash and tears in the outer layer of two spinal discs.
Three orthopaedic specialists who examined or treated Mr Tan's neck and back ailments gave expert testimony -- two for the plaintiff and one for the defendant.
After scrutinising the medical evidence, the judge rejected Mr Tan's claim that the 2010 accident aggravated his pre-existing conditions.
The judge noted the internal inconsistencies in Mr Tan's accounts.
To the orthopaedic specialists, he painted a picture of progressively worsening pain so severe it allegedly required home rest after the 2010 accident.
Yet, in his courtroom testimony, he admitted not only to resuming work immediately after the 2010 accident, but also to continuing work uninterrupted until his fusion surgery, with his earnings allegedly increasing significantly during this period.
She said: "His pattern of calculated deception, marked by opportunistic recollection and strategic exaggeration, demolishes both his credibility as a witness and the believability of his central narrative."
Giving an example of Mr Tan's selective memory, the judge noted that when asked about seeing private specialists during bankruptcy, he clearly remembered that he borrowed money for the consultations, but not whether he disclosed these loans to the Official Assignee.
The judge said Mr Tan exaggerated his physical limitations.
While allegedly suffering from severe and debilitating back pain, he travelled from his home in Sembawang to Simei to collect money, and also made trips to Simei and Bukit Batok for meals.
The judge highlighted his "profit-driven conduct" in concealing his cancer diagnosis, and continuing to claim damages based on an 82-year life expectancy.
As for his psychiatric conditions, the judge said his symptoms emerged only after the 2011 accident and were not connected to the 2010 accident.
Source: The Straits Times © SPH Media Limited. Permission required for reproduction.
785