'I fought for life after holiday horror fall - then faced another major battle'
WARNING – GRAPHIC CONTENT – A British holidaymaker underwent emergency surgery following a near-fatal fall in Thailand, with his medical bills and expenses racking up to £75,000
A British soldier has been hit with huge medical bills after battling for his life following a horrific fall on holiday in Thailand while taking a photo at a popular beauty spot.
Liam Gibson, 21, slipped while taking in the scenery at the Na Muang Waterfall 2 in the Ko Samui District area of Thailand on April 12. Liam, from Hartlepool, was waiting an agonising two hours for a rescue operation after his fall, which left him fearing for his life after "bleeding out". Five hours later, he was transferred to a local hospital for life-saving surgery, where his girlfriend Lucy was faced with medical staff presenting her with a card machine to cover the treatment.
Liam says the medical bills racked up to £75,000, but then he suffered a further blow when his insurers rejected his claim on the grounds he'd put himself "in needless danger".
Following the near-fatal fall, Liam was left with a shattered femur in three places, a broken arm, a shattered left hand, a shattered eye socket, cheekbone, nose and skull. But now recovering in the UK after a repatriation flight, Liam says his insurance company have refused to pay out the maximum amount for his policy, meaning he has had to cough up an eyewatering amount.
"The day of the accident, we got to the hospital," the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers (REME) serviceman told the Mirror. Both Liam and Lucy stressed that they cannot fault the hospital, explaining that the treatment he received was phenomenal, but the trouble started when they sought to cover the medical costs through his travel insurance.
Liam said: "The next morning, my girlfriend spoke to the insurance company and said what had happened, she went through the emergency medical side of it. My mum flew out to help with that.
"We gave them all the information they needed on days one and two. It took three weeks for them to make a decision, I was stuck in the hospital for three weeks, running up the bills. Some days were up to £1,600, the day of the surgery, one was £13,000, another was £22,000. In my eyes, it was a case of me getting fit to fly and coming home straight away.
"At the time, I thought the insurance was paying for it, obviously if I knew it was me paying for it, that's even more of a reason I couldn't afford to stay there."
"We'd done the repatriation," he said. Speaking from his home where he is recovering, he explained that the cost of the flight was supposed to be £35,000, but due to needing an extra medic onboard, the cost went up to £37,500. He added: "The insurance decided out of the kindness of their heart, they'd cover £50,000, so I've had to fork out £25,000, for the medical bills. That was totalling £75,000 when I left."
Liam says that at the time of being offered the payout, he instantly decided to accept as he had "no choice" due to not having £75,000 available.
Due to the mounting medical bills, Liam's girlfriend set up a GoFundMe page to help cover the costs, which he says was a last resort.
"I had to borrow money for the repatriation," he said before explaining that his insurance firm had rejected his case, claiming he was engaging in deliberate or harmful acts. He branded it "ridiculous", before adding: "There's not one bit in the policy that states what's acceptable, safe or unsafe footwear."
In an email from his insurance firm, Admiral, which has been seen by the Mirror, the insurance group said they were unable to process Liam's claim, with them claiming he engaged in a "reckless act" which they class as "putting yourself in needless danger" or "failing to follow recommended safety precautions" on excursions.
Liam, like many tourists visiting the waterfall, was wearing sliders due to the intense heat and humidity in the popular resort. While in Thailand, Liam attempted to get in contact with the British Embassy and Consulate but struggled to speak to a human, rather than an electronic operator.
Reflecting on the GoFundMe, he said: "It was pretty much a last-ditch effort to get what we can." Since returning to the UK, Liam's local MP, Jonathan Brash, has contacted Admiral to express his disappointment. Liam said: "He came to visit me in the hospital, he's writing a letter to the insurance to get them to change their minds, he said it's an absolute joke."
Liam has also been supported by Forces Mutual, an organisation focused on improving the lives of people who serve in HM Forces. "The CEO basically got in contact with me because he'd heard about it through the lads in the army," he said, explaining that the CEO instantly offered to look through Liam's insurance policy.
He has now appealed Admiral's decision, and failing any movement, he is prepared to discuss his case with the ombudsman. Reflecting on his fall, which was just over two months ago, Liam says he remembers the "majority" of the terrifying incident, including going over the edge. However, he doesn't remember his "way down."
Liam had been taking a picture of his surroundings when his feet gave way, and he slipped over and started to pick up speed. While Liam didn't fall the whole way down, he instead landed on "a bit of rock sticking out halfway down." His girlfriend had previously told the Mirror that had he fallen any further, he'd have "died on the spot."
Now, he's unsure if he doesn't remember descending due to either hitting his head or mentally blocking it out. "I remember slipping, then going towards the edge thinking 'S**t, here we go,' going over and then I remember waking up and crawling out of the water. I remember most of being at the bottom, but I was in and out of consciousness, I was pouring with blood, I wasn't all there," he said.
He says that reading Lucy's previous interview with the Mirror in the hospital, the memories started flooding back to him. Recalling the incident, he said: "I was unlucky for what happened but since the accident, everything has been so lucky. There was a vine swinging off before I went over the edge which slowed me down.
"I landed the ledge, not the right the way down. My girlfriend came and found me, and a doctor bandaged me up. Everything from the fall was really lucky after that." Locals and doctors told Liam he was "lucky to be alive" following the fall in the area, which they described as the "Taker of Young Souls."
Liam had three operations in Thailand, including one on his eye, which he says didn't work and an emergency surgery on his skull. "We got back and surgeons here did X-rays, they found that the titanium mesh under my eye was slipping, my eyeball was slipping right down behind my cheekbone," he said, explaining he was "going blind" in the eye. He had emergency surgery just two days after his X-rays.
Now, he is making a recovery at home, engaging in physiotherapy sessions and consultations with medical staff. When approached by the Mirror, Admiral Insurance said they were "very sorry" to hear of Liam's situation and understood that the outcome of his insurance policy may not have been what he was expecting.
They said that Mr Gibson "knowingly undertook a risky activity despite clear warnings." A spokesperson said: "We're really sorry to hear about the injuries he has suffered and as a gesture of goodwill, we made an offer of an ex gratia payment of £50,000 to assist with medical costs and his return home.
"Mr Gibson accepted this and asked us to pay this directly to the hospital towards the medical costs incurred, which we are in the process of doing. To assess his claim, we conducted a thorough review, including a site investigation, due to the limited information Mr Gibson and his girlfriend initially provided. Based on the investigation and the statements provided by both of them, we understand Mr Gibson was injured while climbing the Na Muang waterfall and taking a photograph at the top of the waterfall, despite multiple warning signs of the dangers of slipping or falling due to the terrain and slippery rocks. The information provided to us included Mr Gibson confirming that he wasn't wearing appropriate footwear, given the dangerous nature of the site."
The spokesperson stated that an agent visited the location of the waterfall to determine whether there was information to make visitors aware of the risks. An agent supplied photographic evidence, stating that there were signs located throughout the journey to the waterfall, displaying the risks involved from walking, climbing, jumping or diving in the area. Phone numbers for emergency services were also visible.
"We carefully considered all of the information, including Mr Gibson's account of the incident, the investigator's insights, including photographs of the site, the surrounding warning signs and the information available online about the site," they said. The spokesperson added: "Taking all this into account and given the foreseeable risk and the nature of his actions, which fall under our policy's exclusions for reckless acts, we were unable to cover his claim."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mirror
an hour ago
- Daily Mirror
Brits getting 'gym guilt' as one in five would rather work out than go boozing
Research has found that a fifth of 18-28 year olds would rather share a post work-out selfie online than a picture of them out with their mates as 40% of adults feel guilt from a post gym tipple A poll of 2,000 adults found a fifth of 18-28-year-olds would rather share a post work-out selfie online, than a picture of them out with their mates. However, they feel there's a lack of venues catering to their health-conscious lifestyle, leaving them feeling isolated and frustrated. The poll found that 40 per cent of all adults experience guilt when indulging in a drink after exercise. Despite prioritising fitness, a third admit the gym is their least favourite place for social interaction. To address this, energy drink manufacturer Reign Storm is launching The Energy Bar on June 24, a pioneering venue designed to cater to those seeking 'clean' social spaces. The experimental venue will feature a healthy menu, areas for warm-up, cool-down and light cardio exercises, and a fitness-wear dress code, potentially offering a glimpse into the future of urban bar culture. Rob Adkins, a representative from Reign Storm, commented: "Pubs and bars are awesome, especially in British summertime, but the experience becomes a lot less enjoyable if you don't want to drink alcohol. " "Our research found that UK adults are struggling to find venues that align with their clean-living aspirations, and we think it's time to change that," he said. "The Reign Storm Energy Bar is a one-of-a-kind venue that fuses the clean-living priorities of a gym space, with the social benefits of a pub." The study also revealed the top things adults want from a social venue, including a space quiet enough to talk, and a place that benefits them both mentally and physically. Others desire 'clean' food and drink options or simply good 'vibes'. Concerns about limited alcohol-free choices and a general lack of clean or healthier alternatives were among the reasons given for not socialising at the pub. Meanwhile, a third found it too costly or claimed that visiting the pub made them anxious. The spokesperson from Reign Storm added: "For lots of people, socialising is no longer just about having a drink - it's about sharing experiences." "People want to be able to socialise in a healthy way, and what's healthier than the gym? But there are lots of problems in trying to get your social life up to date in the gym, so a space where you can be clean and chatty is very much."
Scottish Sun
2 hours ago
- Scottish Sun
‘Do not buy' warning to parents over 3 major suncream brands that won't properly protect children this summer
Click to share on X/Twitter (Opens in new window) Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) PARENTS have been warned against three major suncream brands ahead of the summer holidays. These products were found to not offer significant protection to children in the hot weather. Sign up for Scottish Sun newsletter Sign up 4 A study was carried out to determine the effectiveness of popular suncream brands for protecting your children (stock image) Credit: Getty 4 The Morrisons SPF 30 Sun Spray is currently available for £3.75 Credit: Morrisons Which? carried out a series of tests to determine the effectiveness of popular suncream brands ahead of the peak summer season. The independent lab exams tested sun creams that pass British Standard tests for UVA and UVB sun protection. However, the tests uncovered three suncreams which failed either the UVA or UVB tests or both. According to the outlet, this means they don't provide the protection they claim. First on the list is the Morrisons Moisturising Sun Spray SPF30, available for £3.75. Which? claimed this suncream failed SPF tests, which verify if the product can provide the claimed levels of protection from UVB rays. The outlet said it tested the suncream twice to confirm the result and it failed both times. However, the product did pass the UVA test carried out independently by Which?. "We work closely with our supplier and conduct extensive efficacy and safety testing during product development," said a Morrisons representative. "As such all our sun care products are tested to the relevant industry test standards and are not approved for launch until they meet these standards. Man reveals very unusual suncream hack and not everyone is convinced "During development and production all tested variants consistently achieved an SPF of 30." In direct response to the Which? report, the spokesperson told The Sun: "We have retested the SPF against the British and International Standard and can confirm the product has achieved an SPF value of 34.5 and can therefore be labelled as SPF 30." The second suncream on the Which? no-go list is the Ultrasun Family SPF30, available for £22.40 from Boots. The outlet said the product failed a UVA test by not meeting the minimum required level in a first and second test. However, Which? reported that the suncream did pass SPF tests, but said it couldn't recommend it due to failing one of the required tests. The importance of sun cream in your skincare routine Dermatologist and skincare enthusiast Andrea Suarez - known as Dr Dray - revealed why you should wear suncream. The one thing you can do that will make the biggest difference - and this matters for all ages - is protecting your skin from the sun, Andrea stressed. "The vast majority of external aging is due to exposure to ultraviolet radiation," she continued, not because you're "not using some jazzy serum or layering 90 different things on your face everyday". "If you're not doing in your 20s, get on that now." But she said the use of sun cream alone doesn't go far enough. Andrea urged that you also wear sun-protective clothing like broad-brimmed hats and long sleeves, on top of not staying out too long in the sun. Doing this over your lifetime - and all year, not just during the summer or on sunny days - "will reduce the visible signs of photoageing", Andrea said. Those are wrinkles, muddled pigmentation and sagging skin. Ultrasun disputed the findings, telling the publication: "Ultrasun is fully confident in our testing protocols. "As an independent brand delivering very high UVB and UVA protection options for over 30 years, our detailed testing processes continue to not only meet but surpass industry standards. "Our chosen testing protocol is one of the strictest available, and our UVB and UVA filters are tested both in-vitro and in-vivo. "We conclusively support the results of our independent tests which found the Ultrasun Family SPF30 reached a UVB-SPF in vivo of 31.4 and a UVA-PF in vitro of 13.1, which equates to a 92% UVA absorbance." 4 The Ultrasun Family 30SPF Sun Protection is available for £22.40 from Boots Credit: Boots Finally, Which? claimed the Asda Protect Moisturising Sun Lotion SPF30 High, £2.66, also failed to deliver when tested. According to the outlet, tests did not confrim the product's claimed SPF30 in both an initial test or a retest. When contacted by The Sun, a spokesperson for Asda offered an update. "We recently had our Asda Protect Moisturising Sun Lotion SPF 30 High re-tested by a leading external provider using internationally recognised testing methods," they said. "These test results confirmed that this product has a sun protection factor of 31.5, and therefore we do not recognise the test results Which? has published. 'When Which? reviewed this same product in 2022, they awarded it 'Great Value' at that time and it also passed their SPF test. "The product formulation has not changed since then, so we would question the validity of their test.'
The Sun
2 hours ago
- The Sun
‘Do not buy' warning to parents over 3 major suncream brands that won't properly protect children this summer
PARENTS have been warned against three major suncream brands ahead of the summer holidays. These products were found to not offer significant protection to children in the hot weather. 4 Which? carried out a series of tests to determine the effectiveness of popular suncream brands ahead of the peak summer season. The independent lab exams tested sun creams that pass British Standard tests for UVA and UVB sun protection. However, the tests uncovered three suncreams which failed either the UVA or UVB tests or both. According to the outlet, this means they don't provide the protection they claim. First on the list is the Morrisons Moisturising Sun Spray SPF30, available for £3.75. Which? claimed this suncream failed SPF tests, which verify if the product can provide the claimed levels of protection from UVB rays. The outlet said it tested the suncream twice to confirm the result and it failed both times. However, the product did pass the UVA test carried out independently by Which?. "We work closely with our supplier and conduct extensive efficacy and safety testing during product development," said a Morrisons representative. "As such all our sun care products are tested to the relevant industry test standards and are not approved for launch until they meet these standards. "During development and production all tested variants consistently achieved an SPF of 30." In direct response to the Which? report, the spokesperson told The Sun: "We have retested the SPF against the British and International Standard and can confirm the product has achieved an SPF value of 34.5 and can therefore be labelled as SPF 30." The second suncream on the Which? no-go list is the Ultrasun Family SPF30, available for £22.40 from Boots. The outlet said the product failed a UVA test by not meeting the minimum required level in a first and second test. However, Which? reported that the suncream did pass SPF tests, but said it couldn't recommend it due to failing one of the required tests. The importance of sun cream in your skincare routine Dermatologist and skincare enthusiast Andrea Suarez - known as Dr Dray - revealed why you should wear suncream. The one thing you can do that will make the biggest difference - and this matters for all ages - is protecting your skin from the sun, Andrea stressed. "The vast majority of external aging is due to exposure to ultraviolet radiation," she continued, not because you're "not using some jazzy serum or layering 90 different things on your face everyday". "If you're not doing in your 20s, get on that now." But she said the use of sun cream alone doesn't go far enough. Andrea urged that you also wear sun-protective clothing like broad-brimmed hats and long sleeves, on top of not staying out too long in the sun. Doing this over your lifetime - and all year, not just during the summer or on sunny days - "will reduce the visible signs of photoageing", Andrea said. Those are wrinkles, muddled pigmentation and sagging skin. Ultrasun disputed the findings, telling the publication: "Ultrasun is fully confident in our testing protocols. "As an independent brand delivering very high UVB and UVA protection options for over 30 years, our detailed testing processes continue to not only meet but surpass industry standards. "Our chosen testing protocol is one of the strictest available, and our UVB and UVA filters are tested both in-vitro and in-vivo. "We conclusively support the results of our independent tests which found the Ultrasun Family SPF30 reached a UVB-SPF in vivo of 31.4 and a UVA-PF in vitro of 13.1, which equates to a 92% UVA absorbance." Finally, Which? claimed the Asda Protect Moisturising Sun Lotion SPF30 High, £2.66, also failed to deliver when tested. According to the outlet, tests did not confrim the product's claimed SPF30 in both an initial test or a retest. When contacted by The Sun, a spokesperson for Asda offered an update. "We recently had our Asda Protect Moisturising Sun Lotion SPF 30 High re-tested by a leading external provider using internationally recognised testing methods," they said. "These test results confirmed that this product has a sun protection factor of 31.5, and therefore we do not recognise the test results Which? has published. 'When Which? reviewed this same product in 2022, they awarded it 'Great Value' at that time and it also passed their SPF test. "The product formulation has not changed since then, so we would question the validity of their test.'
