I can see having great anxiety after such an accident, like PTSD. Yes, they should have counseling. Are they asking for the bills to be paid or for "pain and suffering" above that? The attorney will get whatever he's worth, but I do think that the victims of the accident deserve all the help (lost income? time off from work?) they can get. Put yourself in their shoes.

If they need further treatment, they should get it.

On the other hand, recognize that personal injury attornies are paid a percentage of any settlements so if further claims are paid by the insurance company, the lawyer gets a bigger paycheck. That's likely the reason for the advice of "go for more treatment and we'll get more money".

How do insurance companies deal with such situations? With great skepticism and limited sympathy, because dealing with self-interested ambulance-chasers on claims is something they do every Monday-Friday, 8:00am to 5:00pm

I'm going to assume for purposes of this response that your nephew and his partner are truly experiencing these symptoms and that you're not suggesting this is a scam. Very generally, the goal of civil tort law is to "make the plaintiff whole." In other words, to restore to the extent possible the individual to the same state they were in before the accident happened. Unfortunately, the only way our system can do this is through the award of monetary compensation. So, yes, they should receive compensation for PTSD and lost sleep so that they can pay for counseling, medication, etc. that may help them to overcome these problems. This seems like a completely legitimate request to me. And despite what is generally thought about lawyers, very very few advise their clients to lie to increase the damages. Lawyers have to act in their clients' best interests and so when a client tells the lawyer, "I'm experiencing XYZ problems," the lawyer should encourage the client to be checked out for any long-term injuries. If the lawyer did not do that, and a person settled a claim for a small amount only to discover that they are going to have lifetime expenses/pain & suffering to deal with, then the lawyer did not do his or her best to represent the client's interest.

I totally agree with Jay. I'm sure the lawyer will tell them the best avenue and most reasonable way to navigate the legal system. That includes documenting, via professionals, such as doctors, what is going on. And if they didn't tell their clients to get looked at, I'd say they were negligent. Hopefully, they're just there to help, and likely are. Insurance companies are set up to handle these types of hits, and it's already in the premiums. Such eventualities are well thought out by actuaries who are highly skilled at guessing what might happen and how to best cover possible losses.

The driver was at fault?

I believe that the driver is always at fault when a pedestrian is hit. Let alone two people!

DBIL was hit on his bicycles head on by a car last year(not his fault) and they are working with a lawyer. He had a head injury plus leg, chest, etc. My sis says he is now afraid to ride his bike and he used to ride almost every day. Yes, I believe that fear will be with him a long tme.

Many years ago, I was rear ended while at a stand still waiting to make a left turn. To this day, I'm paranoid about people coming up behind my car and not stopping.

In all my years at the law office, we have never suggested, recommended, or encouraged any client to seek additional treatment. I don't even think that is even ethical. If a client calls our office and says, "Hey, I have been having nightmares since I was run down." I tell them to call their general physician ASAP and let them know what is going on. Let their doctor determine their course of treatment.

Unless the victim is uninsured, medical expenses are often covered by medical insurance. The victim's insurance company contacts the other for subrogation (reimbursement).

What additional treatment can lead to is documentation of further suffering so as to increase the "pain and suffering" element of the personal injury award. I think your "unethical" suggestion, angel, as an absolute comment isn't correct. Your saying "talk to your physician" if a client tells you of a problem IS sending the client for further treatment, isn't it?

Yes, additional treatment can and probably should lead to a higher pain and suffering personal injury award. If someone needs to go to physical therapy for six months vs. six days, I see no problem with the compensation being higher for the six month person.

You have a preconceived notion that all accident victims are doing whatever they can to increase their settlement/judgment. You also believe that lawyers are all unethical creatures who lead clients down a path to scam insurers. Your opinion, however, does not make it fact. There are far more ethical lawyers than not. To suggest that someone who spent years of study to obtain a law license would risk their livelihood to get a few thousand extra dollars is nonsensical to me. Sure, there are some who do this, but they are a small minority. Most PI attorneys make money based on volume and quick turn around times. They do not want to stretch a case out over months and months by encouraging unnecessary treatment.

Also, insurers are not stupid. They have very rigid guidelines to value cases. If a person in a small fender bender is claiming hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages, you can be sure the insurer is going to flag that claim and investigate it fully. They will take cases to trial that are not settled for an amount that falls within their established guidelines. Insurance companies are not naive organizations and will not increase settlement payments just because Dr. Quack and Attorney Cheatem conspire to fabricate injuries and make outlandish settlement demands. And yes, insurance companies know which doctors and attorneys inflate injuries and claims.

Regardless of what they decide to do, they should remember that sometime down the line their injuries could cause further problems. I broke my ankle very badly when I was young and have screws and straps still in place. Now that I am older, there are some mobility problems caused by the change in my gait and the onset of arthritis. So they should at least consider asking for some extra money for pain and suffering or whatever they would call it, because an injured healed body is more likely to have problems in the future than an uninjured, intact body. Things may not show up for years and years. Asking for that is not being greedy or unethical, just practical.

“Your saying "talk to your physician" if a client tells you of a problem IS sending the client for further treatment, isn't it?”

What should I tell them, Snidely?

If they are having residual health problems, physical or emotional, they should be consulting with their physician, not their lawyer!

You did just as you should, angel, I was just suggesting that your earlier comment was contradictory. You said directing a client for further treatment was unethical (which it's not), but then agree that you (of course) refer clients for further treatment if it seems necessary. The patient should get all treatment they need. A third party can never fully assess whether mental or other soft injuries are real or not and most injury lawyers know that such complaints are a fruitful way to maximize settlements.

jay:

"You have a preconceived notion that all accident victims are doing whatever they can to increase their settlement/judgment. "

No, rather, that's the lawyer's job. It's what they're hired to do. Their incentive is money, the larger the payment, they larger a check the lawyer gets. There's nothing wrong with that, don't get me wrong, but it leads to a lot of phony claims and imaginary ailments.

"You also believe that lawyers are all unethical creatures who lead clients down a path to scam insurers"

Not all, but it's a high percentage in the personal injury/workers comp world.

My views are based on my experiences from a career as a CPA and knowing and working with many lawyers, including those in the PI area.

I found out yesterday that the mat I slipped on at work when I broke my ankle -- someone else had a medical problem with earlier -- I don't know any more details than that, and nor does my source of information. (This mat has since been removed since my spill, I've been informed.) If I learn more, I'll be grateful.

That was back at the tail end of October. I'm still not back on my feet (fully) although I can walk to some extent, and I can FINALLY DRIVE, although this is limited as gravity adds to swelling and pain.

I am getting lots of medical treatment, and a goodly amount of PT, and worker's comp has been wonderful, with home health care as needed since I live alone. (I allowed home health care to run out last week -- I don't know if I could have extended it or not, but that's okay.) Right now the only home health care I really still need is someone to take out the trash and bring in the mail (I have a steep driveway, and I cannot begin to navigate it).

Of course, my accident was witnessed by two co-workers, and videotaped (since it was at a security entry door), so there's a record that no one can refute.

The thing is -- I seriously just want to be better and back to normal. Lawyers won't help me here. They just want moolah. I want to hike through the woods, camp, and be my usual old self, that's all. A payback without any or most of that is, to me... Worthless.

NO interest in lawyering here. I want HEALTH. Fortunately in my case, there's evidence. I recognize that this isn't what is available for so very many other people in a similar bind.

Quote: I believe that the driver is always at fault when a pedestrian is hit. Let alone two people! Unquote.

The driver is not always at fault if the pedestrian was crossing against a "Don't Walk" light. The walk light and green light do not always coincide. In many intersections where an auto may turn right on green, the walk light may be lighted for only part of the green light period. At other intersections without a walk light, the driver must be aware of pedestrians in the cross walk, but the pedestrian must be in the cross walk. If he is out of the cross walk, he is a jay walker.

Yes, I found this article about cars vs jaywalkers.

I would expect much more of this as a lot of peds no longer seem to look both ways as I was taught when I was a kid. Many seem to just walk right in front of or behind moving cars without looking at all.

I often see drivers pull up to a red light, and watch their left for a break in traffic to make that right turn on red. Then their light turns green, which means the pedestrians crossing the other street have the right of way, and the person driving the car is still watching the incoming cars and doesn't check to the right before making their turn. I see that all the time and the pedestrians have to jump back to avoid being hit by the careless driver.

When I'm crossing a street, I make sure to make eye contact with a driver waiting to turn right before I go.

A bit OT: Are there actually enough people with mesothelioma to make it worthwhile for law firms to solicit business via TV ads 24/7? Even if there are viable suits, is there some huge pot of money available to settle claims?

It's a $30Bn fund, so yes it is worth it.

Trouble is that a meso diagnosis typically means 6 months or less left. The fund is faster at helping the living, but once the patient passes away, there is no urgency. Been thru it with a cousin who went from a cough to dead in 4 months. Her sister was trying to claim on the fund, got nowhere. Every time I see the ad, I want to yell that ol' Doug's been dead for 10 years now. Sigh, the ads hurt, make me miss my wonderful cousin.

Remember John Edwards, the former senator, former Democratic presidential contender, and hypocrite? He made his personal fortune (of tens of millions of $$) filing medical malpractice suits of one main type, for cases that alleged that mistakes caused by obstetricians at delivery could cause newborns to contract cerebral palsy. Such injury suits are civil cases so that a lower standard of "proof" is required than for criminal cases. He won large injury awards from jurors who were saddened by the medical condition of the poor babies.

Problem was, it was bogus science. Faulty premise, but it played well to sympathetic juries.

He also sued psychiatrists for malpractice when their patients committed suicide.

Such is the nature of the injury bar.

Thanks for the facts on mesothelioma. I ask you, where ELSE could a person get the information she needs so fast? Hurray for the KT!

sushipup -- So sorry for your loss. This kind of thing just *rankles* forever.

Fortunately, I've never had to be a party to a lawsuit. I've seen enough litigation in my line of work to know I'd never want to be on the other side of the table, so to speak. If you have a case that does not settle and instead goes to trial, the degree of invasion into your personal information is horrendous. In cases of personal injury, having to reveal all of your medical records, attending an Independent Medical Examination by the opposing party's doctor of choice, discussing in a deposition/in front of the jury how it has affected everything from putting on your shoes to your sex life, (almost) nothing is off limits if it is related to the claims you've made in your lawsuit. I'd have to be pretty damn injured or have lost a significant amount of personal property to put myself through that. And just the mental drain of having that negative event control the next 2+ years of your life. Not worth it to me, but I also recognize there are times when people have no choice but to move forward with a lawsuit.

sorry OT but be super careful when your light turns green to watch for people running red lights. This seems to be epidemic up here in Ohio but I'm sure it's everywhere. Always always, look both ways when your light turns green. My husband's car was just totaled when he was hit by a red light runner.

Added to which ... is the recent experience of people carrying their phones/computers with them and feeling a compulsion to text every couple of minutes or so even when walking on/crossing the street.

Tire tracks over legs, or more crucial parts, being a frequent result

ole joyful

I'm confused. I know you can file a lawsuit for just about anything. Doesn't mean it will go anywhere. However in the OP it says the insurance company already paid out for a number of things. I thought one gives up the right to sue after accepting the settlement . Who are they planning to sue, the driver or their insurance? This could get sticky. At best the insurance that paid out for the medical expenses etc. listed would have a lien on the future settlement meaning they would have to pay back the expenses out of the settlement.

I don't know if this is one of those things that differs by location, but I saw something on TV that said that victims of bad injuries should seek at least a basic psychological evaluation straight away because they don't know the longterm effects--what feels understandably shaky now could prove to be a real problem later--and a professional evaluation is evidence, while self-reporting that you're scared of being run over again is not. Additionally, seeking help early may deal with the effects and stave off the kinds of longterm issues that require heavy treatment.

From that point of view, if that's accurate, I don't think it's wrong for the lawyer to suggest an evaluation. What would be wrong is if it were a referral to a particular practitioner. While the attorney might have an interest in having the victims seen by psychologists who have experience testifying in this kind of case, the potential for collusion and other forms of dishonesty is too large. The victims themselves could ask APA or a similar organization for referrals if they want that kind of expertise.

I'm curious about the mat. What is it about the mat that would make people fall and how would that be obvious to either someone walking or to the property owner. Other than one person previously falling, that could be for reasons having nothing to do with the mat and I would guess they concluded there was no reason it was a hazard that actually caused the one fall or they would have removed it (for everyone's benefit).

It's a little scary to think one is responsible for someone falling just because you put a door mat down.