by cescas101 » Thu Dec 02, 2010 11:59 am
HELLO
I WAS IN A AUTO ACCIDENT 3 MONTHS AGO MY CAR WAS TOTALED OVER 9000.00 IN DAMAGES AND MY MEDICAL TOTAL CAME TO 8500.00
I AM GOING TO TRY TO SETTLE NOW WITH INSURANCE . I WAS WONDERING IF THEY PAY MEDICAL SEPARATE AND PAY PAIN AND SUFFERING . I HEARD ITS USUALLY A MULTIPER WHEN DECIDING HOW TO SETTLE. SO IF ITS MULITPIED BY 2 OF MEDICAL BILLS WOULD HALF OF IT GO TO MY MEDICAL OR IS THAT PAID SEPARTE AND I GET THE WHOLE 2X FOR PAIN AND SUFFERING ?
Thank you
I WAS IN A AUTO ACCIDENT 3 MONTHS AGO MY CAR WAS TOTALED OVER 9000.00 IN DAMAGES AND MY MEDICAL TOTAL CAME TO 8500.00
I AM GOING TO TRY TO SETTLE NOW WITH INSURANCE . I WAS WONDERING IF THEY PAY MEDICAL SEPARATE AND PAY PAIN AND SUFFERING . I HEARD ITS USUALLY A MULTIPER WHEN DECIDING HOW TO SETTLE. SO IF ITS MULITPIED BY 2 OF MEDICAL BILLS WOULD HALF OF IT GO TO MY MEDICAL OR IS THAT PAID SEPARTE AND I GET THE WHOLE 2X FOR PAIN AND SUFFERING ?
Thank you
Posted: Thu Dec 02, 2010 05:11 pm Post Subject:
First... STOP YELLING!
Medical bills and pain and suffering are all figured together. It all falls under one release. If the carrier has a lien from the medical provider then they will probably honor that lien and pay that/those provider(s) directly. But that money comes out of your all inclusive settlement.
There is no set multiplier to apply. It all depends on your injury, treatment, location, age, etc.
Posted: Thu Dec 02, 2010 08:28 pm Post Subject:
WOULD HALF OF IT GO TO MY MEDICAL OR IS THAT PAID SEPARTE AND I GET THE WHOLE 2X FOR PAIN AND SUFFERING ?
That's a good question. If you reach a settlement with the insurance company, then they pay you one lump sum for everything. Later, if doctors and hospitals come to you for money, then it's your responsibility to pay them, presumably from that lump sum.
So, if you want money to cover your medical and in addition you want 2X your medical for your pain and suffering, then you've got to settle for 3X your medical.
And as the other poster indicated, there is no medical multiplier to the insurance company. They'll use whatever method they have to come up with a dollar amount. Also, if you've seen multiple doctors and/or go to multiple locations to be treated, be aware that if they do pay medical directly, you're still responsible for anyone that got missed. When you sign that release, they're no long responsible for anything else.
Good luck to you.
Posted: Fri Dec 03, 2010 02:38 am Post Subject:
Everyone here has stated important factor in a settlements ie., age.
Are you saying a 20 yr old who suffers a broken arm/wrist would received more than a 40 yr old. Pertaining to their injuries, does their injured claimant's age work against th1em if they are older ? Please explain
Posted: Fri Dec 03, 2010 05:16 am Post Subject:
Age should not be a major factor, but it is a consideration. It will be somewhat more difficult for an older person to recover from certain serious injuries than younger persons. So to that extent, the "general damages" such as pain and suffering might be greater for an adult than a child, and more for a senior adult than a junior adult.
But understand that "pain and suffering" is highly subjective. Nominal injuries (bumps and bruises, a few sutures, minor wound care) do not warrant much, if any such damages. Having to recuperate from broken bones, major surgery, or more severe trauma are all worthy of some general damages.
Posted: Sat Dec 04, 2010 05:05 am Post Subject: insurance
What about if the individual has pre-existing problems and the accient 'aggravates' those injuries, again? Can someone REALLY tell if the injuries were there BEFORE or just happened, from the result of the accident? (I guess I've always wondered that).
Posted: Sat Dec 04, 2010 07:03 am Post Subject:
Well, looks who's back!
Can someone REALLY tell if the injuries were there BEFORE or just happened, from the result of the accident?
That's why looking at a person's medical records for the past five years is sometimes necessary. If someone looked at my medical records for the past five years, the ONLY thing they would have found (prior to a recent checkup my wife insisted I have) was an ER visit and a one-night hospitalization for a broken ankle, along with the surgeon's consultation, the operation, and the after care for that broken ankle, including about 10-12 physical therapy sessions. Nothing else.
So I if I'm involved in a collision and am only complaining of a sore left ankle, it could be the result of the collision or the result of a 3-year-old broken ankle. If I'm complaining of a sore neck instead, who's to say it was the result of anything other than the collision?
Posted: Sat Dec 04, 2010 11:06 am Post Subject:
Can someone REALLY tell if the injuries were there BEFORE or just happened, from the result of the accident?
That is why each party needs to ask themselves if they could convince a judge/jury of their view. If medical records come right out and show that an injury existed before then this would be much easier. You'd then also need to show that the two injuries were related (if the person had a prior leg injury and the new injury was to the knee, are they related.. etc).Another example that is _very_ common is a herniated disc. If a person is over a certain age (probably around 25) they are going to some degree of a herniated disc. It's "normal wear and tear" on the human body. So when a person has an MRI and it shows that the person has this condition and the person is claiming a sore back... it's almost always because the accident aggravated an existing condition. The insurance company knows that almost every doctor will confirm this if placed on the stand in a court. Of course, the plaintiff's attorney will counter with their facts as well (no prior pain, played sports all of the time with no problems, etc). But let me ask you... have you ever had a sore back? If a doctor on the stand stated that everyone's discs have some degree of herniation, would this sounds reasonable to you? If it does then you'd probably consider the person's condition to have partially existed before the accident.
I'm just throwing one example out there and probably not explaining it very well but it's tough to do without writing a book. Also, 99.999% of the time the above never actually takes place... it's just accepted as what _would_ happen if the case went to court. So, for example, it would be used as an "argument" for the insurance company to make a lower offer on such an injury. The plaintiff does not need to accept that train of thought but this is why people negotiate in a settlement.
Add your comment