Why Case Evaluations Can Never Be One Size Fits All
No two personal injury cases are exactly the same. Even seemingly minor details of cases that appear similar on the surface can make a big difference in the outcome. That’s why I advocate for not getting sucked into the belief that there can be a one-size-fits-all approach to case evaluation.
Ever hear an insurance company say something in negotiations to the effect of: “We only normally pay $X for this type of injury,” or “That offer is 3 times specials!”?
The best lawyers on both sides—and insurance adjusters for that matter—don’t rely on blanket rules or formulas for evaluating cases.
They take into account all the facts of the case, which include:
- The likability and credibility of the plaintiff.
- Any egregious liability facts.
- Causation, including any prior problems and credibility of the treating doctors.
- Extent and duration of pain and suffering.
- Ongoing pain and impairments.
- Medical bills and lost wages.
- Expected future special and general damages.
- Venue.
- Plaintiff’s damages witnesses and their likability and credibility.
- Likability of the defendant.
I always tell clients they could have the same exact same injury in the same venue, but there’s a difference between a sweet little old lady who rear-ends them on their way to church versus a driver who is texting and distracted and runs a red light.
No two cases are the same. Don’t fall into the trap of taking a one-size-fits-all approach in evaluating cases, regardless of which side you are on.
Evaluate all the unique facts of your case. Your client deserves it.
Do you agree? Join the conversation with me on LinkedIn.