Personal Injury

Personal Injury Lawyers in New York State are aware that car accidents have something unique about them. Article 51 of the Insurance Law states, victims of car accidents have to prove serious injury for getting compensation for pain and suffering. 

 

This means that very little can be claimed for medical bills, lost wages, and other minor losses. New York No-Fault law gives assurance that an injured victim would be compensated in these areas. If the car were insured then the insurance company would pay for the medical expenses and lost wages. However, for all this you would require a personal injury lawyer as most insurance companies find ways to avoid paying the money or pay money that is insufficient to meet the expenses. For such denials, and problems, personal injury attorneys are there to represent you and fight the denial for a fair settlement.

 

The vehicle accident serious injury upper limit is theoretically a compromise. Expenses could be cut down on the premises of liability for bodily injury. The nature of such compromises could be the subject of discussion, but this particular debate could be pursued by somebody else.

 

The criteria for what constitutes serious injury is quite complex with various classes of serious injury. Serious injury normally means fractures, injuries, which keep a person out of employment for a significant period, or imposes a major handicap.

 

It would appear that fracture cases are simple, like in automobile accident cases. However, in certain types of fractures, it may not be so. You would think the fracture category would be straightforward like in many auto accident cases. However, there are a few kinds of fractures where it is ambiguous. Fracture of a bone constitutes serious injury as understood from judicial rulings. Fractured cartilage or organs do not fall into the category of serious injury. A case where liver fracture took place did not face judicial scrutiny as it settled out of court. Another question arises as to what type of fracture actually constitutes a fracture. While a hairline fracture constitutes serious injury, a greenstick fracture may not.

 

These important limitations have caused arguments in several hundred cases to prove the significance of limitations and the facts needed to be proved by the affected individual. The opponent advocate will try to prove complete recovery by conducting IME. The plaintiff’s advocate will have to counter this by producing the patient’s doctor indicating nature of injuries suffered, how and why the injury was major. Inadequate proof of injuries and its significance could result in dismissal of the suit.

 

The patient’s advocate must produce documentary evidence like X-ray, MRI reports to substantiate nature of injury and lead to clear findings of the court.

 

There exists a statute, which stipulates that the injured person should be unable to perform his daily routine for over ninety days in the six months following the accident.  Plaintiff’s advocate should be able to link the fact of the patient’s inability to perform his daily routines by submitting adequate medical proof and diagnosis.

 

The above two categories of IME and time away from work can be defeated by the plaintiff’s attorney by highlighting the key defect in the concept of IME and the way the IME physician fails to speak about previous difficulties and treatment. The IME also fails to prove that time away from work is not commensurate with scale of injury. Therefore, the majority of judges realize these aspects and the case remains alive.

 

 Many other difficulties can arise in auto accident cases involving the serious injury threshold, but this a good beginning.