subject: Medical Expert Reason For $3.5 Million Settlement Of Car Accident Lawssuit [print this page] In the event that a vehicle accident claim involves comparatively modest injuries and will probably be resolved with a comparatively modest settlement or award the economics of the case make it improbable that either the plaintiff or the defendant will use an expert witness. The expense incurred by using an expert witness might easily be more than the amount likely to be recovered in the claim. When the lawsuit involves serious injuries and a recovery would likely be significant things change. Now whether or not the plaintiff has an expert may not only make the difference on whether the plaintiff is successful in the lawsuit but may even be the key issue in whether to move forward with the claim in the first place.
Lets analyse the report of a vehicle accident claim in which a bicyclist was seriously injured. The driver of the car involved in the vehicle accident was an elderly gentleman. While driving he lost control of his car. After this the car slammed into the plaintiff and was stopped when it hit a telephone pole. The bicyclist was aged forty and a father of 2. The driver was found to have suffered heavy trauma to the chest in the accident. He died at the scene of the accident prior to the arrival of first responders.
Due to the car accident the bicyclist sustained a head injury. He went into a coma and was diagnosed with permanent brain damage. He was not able to return home with his two daughters. He was could not go back to his job. The victim probably will need long term care in a rehabilitation facility or institution. As of the time the case was reported the expense of his medical care had already exceeded greater than $500,000.
The defense claimed that the driver lost control of his car because of a sudden heart attack. This would mean that a medical emergency, not the drivers negligence, caused of the accident and there would be no liability for the accident and the injuries to the plaintiff. The end result would be that the insurance company would not need to pay any money to the victim. Under the circumstances many law firms would not have continued with the claim. The plaintiff was fortunate to have retained a law firm that was prepared to check deeper. To determine a heart attack caused the accident the law firm retained a medical expert.
Slides of the defendants heart tissue were analyzed by a medical expert hired by the law firm representing the bicyclist. The medical expert was able to demonstrate that the heart attack took place after the accident. Indeed, the medical expert determined that it was the trauma the driver sustained to the chest from slamming into the telephone pole which caused the heart attack. By bringing in the medical expert the law firm was able to show the fault of the driver.
The law firm reported that, equipped with this key piece of information, it was able to achieve a settlement in the claim for $3,500,000. Of this amount, $1,000,000 was for the bicyclists wife who had a claim for loss of consortium. This case demonstrates that facts which at first seem adverse to a claim could in actuality be exactly what causes the case to settle when it is placed in the proper context. The case shows that under some circumstances retaining someone with just the right type of expertise might make all the difference in the result. Lastly, the case shows the importance of not letting the defense characterize the lawsuit.
