Quick answer
Avoid reducing lost income to salary multiplied by months away from work. The claim needs a supported pre-accident baseline, accident-related medical restrictions, evidence of the actual work change, amounts received, mitigation and a transparent calculation. Common failures include ignoring variable pay, treating turnover as earnings, hiding benefits or prior conditions, instructing experts in the wrong order and using an outdated statutory cap.
How to use this guide
These mistakes affect evidence quality, not merely administration. Correct them before they become assumptions repeated through every expert report.
Using too little history for the baseline
One payslip or a strong business month may not represent normal earnings. Preserve a reasonable history of payroll, tax, banking and work records, particularly where income is seasonal, commission-based or irregular. Explain changes in role, employer, hours or business conditions before the accident.
Do not convert an informal discussion about promotion, a possible contract or an ambitious forecast into guaranteed future income. Career evidence must be credible and capable of being tested.
Asking a witness to prove more than they know
An employer should explain the actual role, remuneration, absence, accommodation and work outcome within its records. A colleague may describe observed duties or limitations. Neither should be asked to adopt a medical causation opinion or a future-loss calculation merely to make the letter sound stronger.
Give the witness a focused record request and preserve the response in its original form. If payroll and a manager’s recollection differ, keep both and identify the source of the discrepancy. Editing the employer’s language or supplying a prewritten conclusion can create authenticity questions and may force later clarification.
The same caution applies to accountants and customers in a self-employed claim. They can explain books, transactions and work lost within their direct knowledge; they should not be used to turn an uncertain lead into a guaranteed contract.
Assuming injury automatically caused work loss
Link medical evidence to the duties and period affected. Job loss, lower income or business decline after an accident may also involve restructuring, misconduct, market conditions, unrelated illness or personal choice. Preserve those facts instead of forcing every change into one causal story.
Disclose pre-existing restrictions and later injuries. They do not automatically defeat a claim, but hiding them prevents experts from assessing the actual difference caused by the collision.
Confusing turnover, profit and personal earnings
For self-employment, reconcile revenue, direct and overhead expenses, profit, salary, drawings and retained earnings. Bank deposits may include loans, transfers or VAT and should not be treated as personal income without explanation.
Keep source invoices, bookings, contracts, accounts and tax returns. A schedule made for litigation cannot replace ordinary-course business evidence, and an accountant’s reconstruction should show assumptions and missing data.
Omitting salary, leave and other receipts
Record sick pay, annual leave, commission, disability or insurance benefits and other money received. Their legal treatment may require advice, but excluding them can create apparent duplication and undermine the reconciliation.
Use a period-by-period schedule showing expected income, actual receipts and the claimed difference. Do not claim the gross wage while also ignoring salary that continued through paid leave.
Failing to document mitigation
Keep modified-duty offers, rehabilitation, return-to-work attempts, job applications, training and reasonable steps to earn within supported restrictions. If an option was unsafe or unsuitable, preserve the medical and factual reason.
Do not resign, reject accommodation or close a business solely to strengthen the claim. Obtain appropriate advice and record genuine health-driven decisions. Mitigation is assessed in context, but silence about available options creates an avoidable evidence gap.
Instructing downstream experts too early
An actuarial report can accurately calculate a flawed assumption. Build the sequence from source financial facts to medical function, work or vocational implications and then financial scenarios. Identify which expert supplies each assumption and what remains disputed.
Repeated supplementary reports caused by missing records can increase cost and delay. A records-sufficiency check before instruction helps avoid that cycle.
Losing control of the expert input set
Keep a dated index of everything supplied to each medical, occupational, vocational or actuarial expert. Record the question asked, missing material disclosed and report version received. If a new tax return, job description or clinical record changes an assumption, preserve the earlier instruction before requesting any update.
Do not give different experts inconsistent return-to-work dates or income histories without drawing the difference to their attention. An actuary can calculate several scenarios, but those scenarios must be tied to identified evidential assumptions rather than selected later according to which total is preferred.
Set an approval point before each downstream report. Confirm that the relevant clinical foundation, work history and financial source data are adequate for the question. This reduces avoidable repeat work without suggesting that every disagreement can be resolved before expert analysis.
Applying a stale cap or one universal figure
The RAF Act’s annual loss cap is adjusted through official notices. Match the cap to the relevant date and preserve the source Gazette. Do not copy the latest headline amount into every historic or future scenario without legal analysis.
Keep cap application separate from proof of the underlying loss, apportionment and contingencies. A legal maximum does not prove that the claimant would have earned that amount.
Letting the loss work obscure the main claim
Earnings evidence sits inside a claim that still requires negligent or wrongful driving, bodily injury, causation, valid lodgement and compliance with prescription. A detailed future-loss model cannot repair a missed unidentified-vehicle period or invalid form.
Update the schedule when treatment, employment or business facts change and retain earlier versions. Do not backdate records or silently replace assumptions already given to experts.
Run a consistency check across the claimant’s statement, medical reports, employer evidence, tax records and expert instructions. Differences in return-to-work dates, job duties, income figures or reasons for leaving should be explained at source. Repeating an early estimate after better records arrive can make a correctable mistake look like deliberate exaggeration. Keep a change log showing the reason, evidence and person who approved each revision.
What correcting mistakes cannot guarantee
A well-supported earnings file does not guarantee that the RAF or a court accepts every restriction, scenario or amount. Evidence is still assessed for reliability, causation, mitigation, contingencies and the statutory cap. Current legal and expert advice is needed for the specific claim.
FAQs
Is salary multiplied by time off a valid loss calculation?
Not by itself. The calculation must reflect actual remuneration, payments received, the reason for absence and supported accident-related restrictions.
Should I hide a pre-existing condition?
No. Relevant prior conditions and later events should be disclosed so causation and functional change can be assessed accurately.
Can business turnover be claimed as personal income loss?
Not automatically. Business expenses, profit, drawings, salary and other market or operational causes need to be separated.
Why is an old RAF cap risky?
The cap is adjusted periodically. A stale figure can distort a current calculation and must be replaced by the notice applicable to the legal analysis.
Related Lexuno paths
Related articles
Source notes
Legal note
This article is general legal information for South African readers. It is not legal advice. Speak to a qualified legal professional about your specific facts before taking action.