subject: Medical Expert Invalidates Defense Version Of Automobile Accident And Shows Fault [print this page] Attorneys who help catastrophically injured victims of car accidents realize that in certian lawsuits it is critical to retain specific experts so as to demonstrate the negligence of the defendant. This is not automatically so in each lawsuit. Of course no expert is necessary if an issue, like liability, is not denied. Experts are expensive. In those cases that solely involve (1) minor injuries or (2) minimal insurance coverage and minimal or no assets that can be used for a recovery in the lawsuit, the economics of the case might make retaining an expert not feasible. When the claim involves serious injuries and a recovery would likely be significant things change. Now whether or not the plaintiff has an expert might not only make the difference on whether the plaintiff is successful in the case but may also be the key issue in whether to proceed with the claim in the first place.
Consider the following reported claim. The vehicle involved in this motor vehicle accident case was operated by an elderly man. He in some way lost control of the car, struck a 40 year-old man who was riding his bicycle along the bike path adjacent to the road, then hit a telephone pole. The driver died before any medical personnel responded. He suffered major chest trauma in the accident.
The bicyclist sustained a head injury that put him into a coma and resulted in permanent brain damage. With this disability he was not able to go back home to be with his children. He was could not go back to work. The plaintiff will most likely require permanent care in a rehabilitation facility or institution. As of the time the claim was reported the cost of his medical care had already reached greater than $500,000.
The defense denied fault in the matter. The autopsy of the defendant found that he had suffered a heart attack. The defense argued that the driver had experienced a sudden heart attack which is what led to him to lose control of his vehicle and strike the plaintiff. The argument is that if the accident was the result not of the drivers negligence, but by a medical emergency, then the driver was not at fault and the plaintiff could not succeed on his case. As a result the insurance company would not have to pay any money to the plaintiff. Given the circumstances the majority of law firms would not have continued with the claim. The biycyclist was fortunate to have retained a law firm that was willing to check further. To determine a heart attack caused the accident the law firm retained a medical expert.
The law firm forwarded slides of heart tissue taken from the autopsy to a medical expert for more in-depth study. The medical expert was able to conclusively show that the heart attack did not take place until after the defendant suffered trauma to his chest from slamming into hitting the telephone pole.
The law firm reported that, equipped with this key piece of information, it was able to recover a settlement for the case for $3,500,000. Of this amount, $1,000,000 was for the victims wife who had a claim for loss of consortium. This case shows that facts which at first seem detrimental to a lawsuit could in reality be exactly what causes the case to settle when it is explained in the correct framework. The case illustrates that in certain circumstances retaining an expert with just the right type of expertise can make all the difference in the result. Lastly, the claim shows the importance of not letting the defense position the lawsuit.
by: Joseph Hernandez
welcome to Insurances.net (https://www.insurances.net)
