Aims. To capture the views of various members of the healthcare system with regards to whiplash injuries and in particular, the cumulative effects of whiplash on a patient seeking compensation. Method. A questionnaire was set up on “Surveymonkey” which consisted of three scenarios outlining 1. single whiplash injury 2. Past history of neck pain with new whiplash injury 3. Chronic history of neck pain with a new whiplash injury seeking long term compensation and early retirement. The respondents were asked whether or not they agreed or disagreed with fictional expert opinions for each scenario. The questionnaire was distributed to orthopaedic surgeons, accident & emergency doctors, general practitioners and physiotherapists. Results. In Scenario 1, half of the respondents believed that after a single whiplash injury with no past history of neck pain a decision of 3 months worth of disability compensation was acceptable. In Scenario 2, 67% of respondents opined that a previous history of whiplash injury makes a patient more susceptible to further soft tissue damage. Finally, in Scenario 3 100% of respondents believe that a decision of 12 years of compensation and early retirement due to his new injury was unjustifiable. Conclusions. Our questionnaire revealed that the majority of respondents believe that whiplash injuries are cumulative in nature. They also are of the opinion that chronic neck pain, once settled, does not contribute to subsequent whiplash injury. Conflicts of Interest. None. Source of Funding. None

Over the past two decades much has been written regarding pain and disability following whiplash injury. Several authors have reported on the relationship between insurance claims and whiplash-associated disorders. Our own experience of over 10-years suggests that fracture may be protective of whiplash injury following road traffic accident (RTA). We exported all ‘medical legal’ cases due to RTA from our EMR system and combined this with patient-reported outcome measures. 1,482 (57%) of all medicolegal cases are due to RTA: 26% ‘head-on’, 34% ‘side-impact’ and 40% ‘rear-ended’. Over half of the vehicles involved are subsequently written-off. While the mean BMI is 27.1, ¼ of this cohort has a BMI over 30 (obese). 163 (11%) patients report a fracture occurring as a result of RTA. Type of impact is significant for fracture (p < 0.05). 47% of RTA which result in fracture are due to ‘head-on’ collision; conversely only 21% are due to ‘rear-ended’ impacts. In 1,324 (89%) of RTA without fracture, patients are twice as likely to report whiplash injury as one of their top-3 sources of pain (p < 0.01). Gender is statistically significant for age (M 44.4, F 38.6, p < 0.05). While the BMI of this cohort is alarming, it is consistent with Irish obesity statistics. Type of impact, in particular ‘head-on’ collision (high kinetic energy event), is significant for fracture. Finally, we report that fracture is significantly protective (p < 0.01) of whiplash injury following RTA