Personal Injury Lawyer Blog
The following blog entry is written to illustrate an example of a personal injury case. Reviewing this kind of lawsuit should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.
(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this slip and fall lawsuit and its proceedings.)
Three months after she fell on the bus, the plaintiff recognized that her injury wasn’t healing properly and sought treatment. The plaintiff’s wound was surgically repaired, but her surgeon determined that the skin in the affected area was so thin and caused so much pain, that she needed to undergo an amputation.
Plaintiff’s counsel asserted that the plaintiff had enjoyed five consecutive, asymptomatic years immediately before the bus accident, and that the osteomyelitis recurrence, ulcer and subsequent amputation all resulted from the fall.
Plaintiff’s counsel argued that the plaintiff would require a new prosthetic leg every two years and pain management therapy, and that she would need a wheelchair and would have to reduce her work schedule to 20 hours per week.
The plaintiff sought about $1 million in economic damages, including about $750,000 for future medical care, plus unspecified damages for past and future pain and suffering.
ABC Transit argued that the fall on the bus wasn’t the reason the plaintiff needed the amputation. Counsel contended the plaintiff’s leg would have been amputated anyway due to the extensive injury and surgery in the affected location.
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.
ABC Transit contended that the plaintiff would only require a new prosthetic leg every four years and suggested $500,000 in future medical damages was a more appropriate figure for those damages.
ABC Transit argued that the plaintiff failed to properly mitigate her damages because she waited three months to treat the injury. The lawyer asserted that, had the plaintiff sought treatment in a more reasonable time frame, her leg might not have required amputation.
Plaintiff’s counsel responded that the treating orthopedic surgeon indicated the fall as the sole reason for the amputation, opining that the leg would have required amputation even if the plaintiff had received immediate treatment for the injury.
SUMMARY:
RESULT: Settlement
The parties agreed to a $2,750,000 settlement.
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.