Shared by:

JPeick@aol.com
Peicklaw@mail-list.com

Published By Peick & Associates, P.S.     February 2001

LOW SPEED IMPACT PERSONAL INJURY CASES.




With a few exceptions, the jury trial carnage in metropolitan counties


(King, Snohomish, Pierce) appears to continue unabated for those cases


where collisions have occurred at low speeds with little visible


damage.  While property damage is clearly not a reliable indicator for


injury, juries continue to be persuaded to the contrary.  Allstate and


other insurers continue to aggressively defend these types of cases.


These cases can be won at trial, but the investment in accident


reconstruction experts, preparation of your healthcare experts to


persuasively discuss the biomechanics of injury, exhaustive


preparation of the patient to establish rapport and credibility with


the jury, and need to coordinate more treatment providers at trial can


make these types of cases expensive without reducing the considerable


risk of a jury deciding against you.  Clients are reluctant to spend


these sums of money when faced with the candid appraisal of their


chances in court.




Nevertheless, we continue to see providers extending financial credit


to low speed patients for thousands of dollars of services.  As


treatments continue and expenses increase, the financial expectations


of the patient/client increase.  This rise in expectations fuels


client resistance to settlement, and drives cases inexorably to trial.


This dynamic creates an uncomfortable situation for the attorney.  If


the attorney counsels his or her client regarding their expectations


versus trial results, it is common for patient/clients to suspend


care.  This suspension of care can be (1) detrimental to the patient's


health; (2) detrimental to the candid exchange of information between


professionals, and (3) of less importance, damaging to the continued


cordial relationship between the attorney and doctor.  By the same


token, high provider billings are a major source of patient/client


dissatisfaction with the provider when trial results are mixed.




We hasten to add that we are not advocating an abandonment of your low


speed patients.  However, low speed patients need to be apprised of


their legal opportunities and chances for recovery.  Under-promising


and overachieving is a far better model than the reverse.  By default,


attorneys should not be counseling clients about their health care


choices.  It is appropriate and more meaningful to the patient/client


if a candid discussion occurs with their provider regarding their


health, and their ultimate personal responsibility for payment


notwithstanding the outcome of the case.  We repeatedly instruct our


clients that the restoration of health is their primary goal, since no


matter how successful we are in court, no amount of money will give


them back their health.




Accordingly, while we can often settle these cases, pay the providers,


and provide clients with some recompense, actually trying these cases


before a jury, for the reasons stated, is all too often a


disappointing and expensive experience.  For their own clinical and


financial protection, providers need to identify these low speed


impact cases with a thorough history, request information regarding


property damage, and even obtaining photographs of the vehicles, if


necessary.  The provider needs to immediately educate the low speed


patient about their responsibilities for their care, and the potential


that the civil justice system may not be able to adequately compensate


them.  Protracted care on credit, or typical practice building


techniques in these types of low speed cases will ultimately produce


dissatisfied patients, and pressure on providers to discount their


billings.




Providers need to have patients begin some payment regime tailored to


their ability.  What the patient needs for their care needs to be


separated from what they can obtain from the civil justice system in


low speed cases.  By keeping expectations in line with reality, the


patient accepts their responsibility for their own health, and the


patient and attorney can focus on maximizing the patient's financial


recovery while the provider assists in the restoration of health.