The first such factor gets assessed by asking a simple question: How great was the plaintiff’s pain? That pain often reflects the nature of the harm done to an accident victim. In that way, it reveals a good deal about the nature of the underlying injury.
Questions answered to some degree by examining the details about a victim’s pain
Did the accident cause the victim to suffer a hard or a soft injury? A broken bone is a hard injury; a sprain or strain is a soft one.
Have most of the victim’s medical expenses arisen from that same person’s effort to get treated for his or her injury? The insurer likes to see a list of expenses that showcases a reliance on offered treatment. When that treatment has been supervised by a doctor, a clinic or some member of a hospital’s staff, then that fact increases the value of the eventual settlement.
Has the doctor prescribed meds for the patient? For some reason, insurers equate downing pills with following an effective treatment strategy. This approach allows the insurer to take a perfunctory interest in all of the information that has been made available, concerning a given victim’s surgery, even if it helped to heal the injury.
Did the victim’s injury disrupt his or her daily life? Did it make it harder for the victim to carry out simple, daily activities? A debilitating or disfiguring injury would have the ability to showcase the degree of disruption in the victim’s life.
Elements in follow-up to a given accident that can increase the amount of compensation owed to the victim
No shared fault. The defendant must carry the weight of responsibility for what happened, as a result of the injury-causing accident. The defendant has failed to handle the settlement process in a calm and organized fashion. A defendant that is trying to deceive the other party’s insurance company might feel inclined to suggest an approach other than the one suggested by the defendant’s legal team.
The defendant has not presented credible evidence; moreover, the defendant’s actions fail to demonstrate a desired amount of sympathy. The plaintiff’s injury lawyer in Lethbridge has arranged for the appearance of excellent witnesses. If the plaintiff has suffered a terrible injury, members of the medical profession should feel inclined to support the plaintiff’s claims. In other words, it would be hard to produce good witnesses, if the plaintiff’s case had a weak foundation.
The plaintiff has shown patience throughout the negotiating phase. The insurer gets annoyed by repeated calls from a plaintiff or a plaintiff’s attorney. A plaintiff with a winning case should feel confident of the evidence’s ability to highlight the veracity of the plaintiff’s argument.