Most victims hope to recover the full value of the injury-causing accident. Ideally, a victim can witness the realization of that hope, minus the need for a trial.
The questions that a consulted personal injury lawyer might have for a victim/potential client:
What were the circumstances that related to the accident? Personal injury lawyers in Mississauga,normally refer to such circumstances as the “facts of the case.”
What was the cost of the treatment? Remember, lawyers always urge their clients to delay the start of negotiations until the time when the victim has arrived at the point of maximum medical improvement (MMI). At that point in time, the prescribed treatment should have been completed, and the results should have been evaluated.
What amount of the victim’s income had been lost, due to the same victim’s inability to get to and perform at his or her workplace?
How negotiations frequently play out, and why that could prove significant?
During the negotiations, the appointed adjuster in the defendant’s insurance agency could direct the defendant’s attorney, who has been employed by the same agency.
Some adjusters like to pretend that they have extensive knowledge of a claimant’s medical problem. For instance, if an adjuster had learned that the claimant had a pre-existing medical condition, then he or she might encourage the attorney to suggest that the personal injury lawyer’s client should have been using some type of special device, at the time of the accident.
In order to fight such an allegation, the client’s lawyer might need to seek out a medical expert. Yet, at least some adjusters realize that not every client-lawyer team feels ready to go along with that sort of bluffing tactic. In fact, in cases where a victim has suffered a serious injury, utilization of such a tactic could prove unhelpful, if the case were to go to trial.
A judge might question an adjuster’s claims, regarding any claims about devices on the market, those that could be used by the injured victim. For that reason, the negotiations would be apt to end with a settlement, rather than to proceed to the stage of litigation.
Would that same settlement provide the victim with fair compensation? The answer to that question could depend on the extent to which the personal injury lawyer has consulted with a medical expert.
If the same lawyer had learned that the proposed device did not really exist, then he or she might succeed in getting the other side to agree to a fair settlement. Still, in the absence of an expert’s advice, the claimant’s lawyer might need to rely on the degree of reluctance that had been shown by the defendant’s attorney, with respect to a possible trial.
