by luvntheshadows » Fri Jan 18, 2008 04:59 am
Hello
I live in CA and last year a man driving an SVU sped out of his driveway and collided with me. Luckily neither of us were badly hurt, so it seemed at the time.
The following day I couldn't bend down. I called my lawyer who sent me to a doctor who determined that I had severe visible muscle spasm in my lumber region and recommended about 6 or so months. An MRI was also ordered which confirmed 3 herniated discs. Nothing too major, but major enough that I still get occasional pangs, and was pretty much unable to sit for the first month.
The car damages were about $2K. The other motorist was unisured. My uninsured motorist coverage is $30K.
My lawyer recently called and stated that they would like to settle for $7,500.
What seems unreasonable to me was that she told me that since I am overweight, the medical experts determined that the impact of the crash could not have possibly caused the extent of injuries which I sustained, therefore I must've had some prior damages, and the amount was lowered.
I asked her if they are in possession of any prior Xrays or MRIs that they had to juxtapose this and she stated that she did not know as they would not show her the file . Her opinion was to settle and move on, which part of me agrees with, but the low amount of money seems to have a shady basis.
Even if we assume that I have had previous injuries, since his negligence is the cause ofworsening a pre-existing condition, aren't I entitled to full compensation? Wasnt that the "eggshell" ruling??
Thanks.
I live in CA and last year a man driving an SVU sped out of his driveway and collided with me. Luckily neither of us were badly hurt, so it seemed at the time.
The following day I couldn't bend down. I called my lawyer who sent me to a doctor who determined that I had severe visible muscle spasm in my lumber region and recommended about 6 or so months. An MRI was also ordered which confirmed 3 herniated discs. Nothing too major, but major enough that I still get occasional pangs, and was pretty much unable to sit for the first month.
The car damages were about $2K. The other motorist was unisured. My uninsured motorist coverage is $30K.
My lawyer recently called and stated that they would like to settle for $7,500.
What seems unreasonable to me was that she told me that since I am overweight, the medical experts determined that the impact of the crash could not have possibly caused the extent of injuries which I sustained, therefore I must've had some prior damages, and the amount was lowered.
I asked her if they are in possession of any prior Xrays or MRIs that they had to juxtapose this and she stated that she did not know as they would not show her the file . Her opinion was to settle and move on, which part of me agrees with, but the low amount of money seems to have a shady basis.
Even if we assume that I have had previous injuries, since his negligence is the cause ofworsening a pre-existing condition, aren't I entitled to full compensation? Wasnt that the "eggshell" ruling??
Thanks.
Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2008 12:53 pm Post Subject:
Good morning luvntheshadows, and welcome to the community...so sorry about your accident...
Even if we assume that I have had previous injuries, since his negligence is the cause ofworsening a pre-existing condition, aren't I entitled to full compensation? Wasnt that the "eggshell" ruling??
No unfortunately you're not...It is understood that aggrevating a pre-existing injury is not ''worth'' nearly as much as ''causing'' one to begin with... Which really does make sense if you think about it...Sally is skipping thru life injury free when she's hit, and suffers hern.discs...poor Sally she was perfectly fine until this....now Sally with her bad back is hit again, and while she was getting along pretty good from the prior injury this new hit has caused old problems to flare up....Sally is owed certainly for the 'flare' up, but the second hit shouldn't have to carry the burden of compensating her for the orginal injury see?Now, if you do have xrays prior to this accident that show no problem, then you need to get that information to the adjuster...you should only have to sign release of medical information form, for that specific information...
My lawyer recently called and stated that they would like to settle for $7,500.
Is this above your medical bills? If not and this includes your bills, I think your med bills have to be close to this, and what amount is your attorney taking?What seems unreasonable to me was that she told me that since I am overweight, the medical experts determined that the impact of the crash could not have possibly caused the extent of injuries which I sustained, therefore I must've had some prior damages, and the amount was lowered.
Again, if this is possible (you had pre-existing conditon) then they will owe you aggreivation of the injury not cause.Posted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 05:13 am Post Subject:
You are only eligible for the medical expenses that you have incurred during treatment following the accident. Any injuries that you have suffered prior to the accident won't get counted for compensation, though the accident might have worsen it. If your medical bills have summed up to $7,500, then you can collect only that amount from your carrier.
Posted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 02:56 pm Post Subject:
If your medical bills have summed up to $7,500, then you can collect only that amount from your carrier.
I'm sorry this is not likely a true statement, she will still be due the aggrivation of the prior injury in the form of a small pain and suffering settlement in addition to her bills.Posted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 10:27 pm Post Subject:
My question what the heck does her weight have to do with it? and what does weight have to do with how a person is injured? This does not seem right to me, could someone explain this please?
Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 07:41 am Post Subject:
goodnatured, simple physics and the movement of mass (no offense intended). Until terminal velocity is reached, objects move a different speeds based on their weight. If a car his a brick wall at 40 MPH, who puts more strain on the belts; the 70 lb kid or the 250 lb dad?
Because our bodies weren't really designed to be obese (there can't be any argument there) things like the trauma caused by rapid deceleration, affects us all differently.
Well, the actuaries and underwriters have got this all figured out and have hard-wired it into the claims process. Anything to save a buck - or avoid paying a claim.
I must have been sleeping when the profesor covered the "eggshell ruling." Could someone bring me up to speed on that one?
Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 01:11 pm Post Subject:
Ins Invest. is (duh) correct of course...Weight, as does age can play a part in determining orgins of injury. Not only doe the explaination he gave pertain, but also an overweight individual, would likely have bad knees for example (given they had reached middle age carrying weight for an extended period of time)...so if they get hit in the worn out knee's then it has to be looked at was there damage here before....Also in the impact/weight scenerio, many many times in accidents, when a seat track or a seat breaks, (95% of the time) the occupier of the seat was overweight. I still replace the seat, but this is just another issue, (i've heard of some carriers that have not paid this..hard for me to believe but none-the-less)...also if we reach a certain age, lets say 70, women in particular will all nearly have some form of degenerative disc disease....
Add your comment