Suing the sick

[Gob]

Cheers Scoot all good quality information there.

[Sean]

Saying that, I'm approaching the end of treatment for a wrist reconstruction at the moment. The accident (nobody's negligence, just an accident) happened on the way to work so Workcover have footed all of the bills... which is very nice of them. At the end of the day I will be left with about 50% mobility in my wrist so am entitled to an additional payout from Workcover against loss of future earnings after being assessed by their doctor.

It's frightening the number of people who want me to refuse Workcover's offer (however much it is) grab a lawyer and screw as much as I can out of this. It just goes against my nature; I'm not a grabber.

If however, I were to get a lawyer and milk the system for all it's worth then I believe that I would be one of the people Strop is talking about.

I wonder how many of the litigation cases mentioned above are genuinely people asking for what they are entitled to rather than the big pay day their lawyer has promised them...

[Scooter]

I would suggest you get a lawyer, if only to review the offer made to you with someone whose job it is to be able to assess it.

It's not about "milking the system for whatever it's worth". But if you are satisfied with a payout that will cover any loss of future earnings, it is only prudent to get an independent assessment of whether the proposed payout actually does that. I don't know how things work in Australia, but I know that worker's compensation here consistently lowballs such payments, and those who don't know that and don't obtain legal advice to assess the fairness of what they are offered end up screwed.

[Sean]

The thing is Scoot, I don't think my future earnings will be greatly affected. Once I can lift properly again (which should be in a couple of months) I'm fine at work and I don't play guitar for a living anymore (which is just as well...) so I see anything they give me as a nice bonus.

[Sue U]

No lawyer who knows anything about actual legal practice, the business end of lawyering and/or human nature would ever promise a personal injury client a "big payday." That's a sure way to end up with at best unhappy clients and possibly a malpractice suit or professional grievance. The first thing any lawyer with any sense does is explain how difficult and lengthy the process can be and how individualized damages assessments are, thereby lowering the client's expectations. I'd much rather deliver more than the client thought possible than less than he was expecting.

[Sue U]

The thing is Scoot, I don't think my future earnings will be greatly affected. Once I can lift properly again (which should be in a couple of months) I'm fine at work and I don't play guitar for a living anymore (which is just as well...) so I see anything they give me as a nice bonus.

Scooter's suggestion for a second opinion is a good one, especially if it won't cost you anything for the review. And don't be so sanguine about your surgical result; I've seen plenty of "successful" surgeries go bad, and not necessarily due to any medical negligence.

[Scooter]

The thing is Scoot, I don't think my future earnings will be greatly affected.

That may well be true in the short term, but what about as you age? You're probably at much higher risk of arthritis and other conditions which will affect the strength and mobility of your wrist. An independent review can assess the probabilities of that and value a fair payout accordingly.

Obviously, you should do what you want. But I would hate to see you endure actual monetary losses because you didn't have the information to judge whether or not what they are offering you is fair.

[Sean]

The thing is Scoot, I don't think my future earnings will be greatly affected. Once I can lift properly again (which should be in a couple of months) I'm fine at work and I don't play guitar for a living anymore (which is just as well...) so I see anything they give me as a nice bonus.

Scooter's suggestion for a second opinion is a good one, especially if it won't cost you anything for the review. And don't be so sanguine about your surgical result; I've seen plenty of "successful" surgeries go bad, and not necessarily due to any medical negligence.

[Sue U]

Don't know much about it, just looking for facts to back up my case Sue.

Ah, so you start with your opinion first, then scramble for something to support it. That's one way to do it, I suppose. But there are other approaches you might want to give a try sometime.

[Gob]

As might you then.

[Sean]

The thing is Scoot, I don't think my future earnings will be greatly affected. Once I can lift properly again (which should be in a couple of months) I'm fine at work and I don't play guitar for a living anymore (which is just as well...) so I see anything they give me as a nice bonus.

Scooter's suggestion for a second opinion is a good one, especially if it won't cost you anything for the review. And don't be so sanguine about your surgical result; I've seen plenty of "successful" surgeries go bad, and not necessarily due to any medical negligence.

<mutter>Bloody forum making me log back in and then throwing out everything but the quoted bit in my post... Never would've happened on the CSB...</mutter>

The thing is Sue it would cost me plenty! The lawyers who handle these cases don't work on a flat fee. They want 20% - 50% of your payout and won't even talk to you about your case until you sign on the dotted line. Personally I'd rather see the taxpayer's money go to some other use rather than to Shotgun, Bastard & Dribble, Lawyers*.

*20 points for getting that reference...

[Gob]

The thing is Scoot, I don't think my future earnings will be greatly affected. Once I can lift properly again (which should be in a couple of months) I'm fine at work and I don't play guitar for a living anymore (which is just as well...) so I see anything they give me as a nice bonus.

Yes Sean, but think of the effect an arthritic wrist could have on your sex life!!!

[Scooter]

The thing is Sue it would cost me plenty! The lawyers who handle these cases don't work on a flat fee. They want 20% - 50% of your payout and won't even talk to you about your case until you sign on the dotted line.

Except that you're not asking them to take the case in order to win you a larger payout. You'd be asking them to spend a few hours to review your situation, look at their offer, and give you their assessment of whether it is reasonable. Whether you use that info to sue for more money is up to you, and at that point, whatever increase in the payout you would expect vs. what you'd have to pay to a lawyer on contingency is obviously going to be a major factor in your decision.

[Sean]

I think you missed the bit where I said I would have to agree to give them a percentage before they would even discuss my case Scoot. These 'people' don't do free consults...

[Scooter]

Any lawyer who would insist that you agree to engage them to press forward with a suit without even reviewing your case would be disbarred. What if your case has no merit? What is 20% - 50% of zero?

All you need is a couple of hours of their time to give your their assessment of your situation. I never said they should do it for free, which is why lawyers charge by the hour as well as on a contingency basis.

[Guinevere]

Countries with larger numbers of corporate entities will also generate larger numbers of civil cases, for example.

Now I wonder why that would be?

A larger number of entities with "deep pockets" springs immediately to mind as one possible explanation.....

No, actually it's because the vast majority of lawsuits are businesses suing each other over contract and other commercial issues. Personal injury cases make up only a fraction of civil filings.

In 15 years of practice I've been involved in exactly *one* personal injury case. Most of the rest were some of the many varied forms of business litigation -- disputes between companies, disputes between employers and employees, disputes between governments and regulated entities.

[BoSoxGal]

I think you missed the bit where I said I would have to agree to give them a percentage before they would even discuss my case Scoot. These 'people' don't do free consults...

That's a particularly nasty statement, especially since you post with at least one attorney who makes her living doing PI work and is a very fine person from all evidence on the table.

I sleep with someone who does a fair amount of PI work, and he's a very fine person, too.

Most PI attorneys do, in fact, provide free initial consults - because most injured persons can't afford to pay to find out if they have a solid claim.

The tendency to despise injured persons seeking redress and the lawyers who represent them never fails to amaze me, especially as I know most of the narrow-minded folks who have such a perspective would change it pretty quick if they were negligently hurt and had to fight to be made whole.

[Sue U]

I think you missed the bit where I said I would have to agree to give them a percentage before they would even discuss my case Scoot. These 'people' don't do free consults...

I do free consultations. Every personal injury and workers comp attorney I know (and I know literally thousands) does free consultations. I can't imagine how or why I'd want to sign up any client without knowing first whether he/she has a case or not, what it's about, whether I'm competent to handle it, and whether it's something worth pursuing. I wouldn't want to form an attorney-client relationship with someone who I can't or don't want to represent in a matter I can't or don't want to handle. Furthermore, even if you do sign up with a lawyer, there is nothing to stop you from firing him/her, whether to change counsel or to drop the case entirely. No one can force you to prosecute a claim you don't want to pursue, and it is ALWAYS the client's choice who, if anyone, will represet him/her. You seem to have some preconceived notions of what attorneys do. Admittedly, I don't know how the practice works in Aus, but seeing as we all use roughly the same common law system, I can't imagine it's that much different.

[Gob]

BSG: I don't think Sean was generalising when he used "these people", I think he was uisng the term in it's correct sense, as in "these people who have offered me a service".

Can I offer this in good humour?

We have how many Americans here who work in the law field? ? ?

[Joe Guy]

I agree with Gob.

I didn't think Sean was talking about any "people" other than the people who wanted an agreement for an unusually large percentage of his settlement before even reviewing the details of his case.

Around here in my part of the U.S. the Workmen's Comp attornies usually get 15% of the settlement.