Personal Injury Lawyer

When the economy went south a few years back, did the number of personal injury lawsuits skyrocket?

Asked by Cee7 over 11 years ago

They didn't necessarily skyrocket, but I do believe that the personal injury field is recession-proof.  There may have been a few more lawsuits a few years back, but whether the economy is in good shape or bad shape, a case still needs to be legitimate to bring a lawsuit.  There may have been more people calling lawyers to inquire about possible lawsuits because they needed money, but ultimately, if the case is a loser, we're not going to take it. 

Are there ever any jury awards so disproportionate to the claim that even you shake your head?

Asked by jen over 12 years ago

Of course, all the time. Thankfully that's why we have Appellate Courts. It happens for both Plaintiffs and Defendants too. We're talking about a jury of 6 people, most of whom have never sat on a jury before. They're not experts and there's no magic number when it comes to awarding damages for injuries. A broken arm isn't worth "x" and a broken leg worth "y". The eventual amount awarded by the jury is completely subjective and therefore can be completely disproportionate to what is "the norm". But if that happens, either side can appeal and the Appellate Courts can alter the award. I know somebody who tried a case where a woman had to have a cervical fusion and discectomy (removed and disc from her spinal cord in her neck and replaced it with a metal cage, think Peyton Manning). Typically, the average jury award for a case like this depending on facts and circumstances is 250k up to over a million dollars. The jury only awarded 85k. So the plaintiff appealed and the Appellate Court bumped the award up to 350k. It works the other way too when juries give "runaway verdicts", Appellate Courts can reduce those jury awards as well.

When you're facing off against another lawyer, do ever feel like it gets personal between the two of you and you wind up genuinely disliking him/her?

Asked by object this almost 12 years ago

More often than not, no.  Actually, it's quite the opposite.  Most of the time, lawyers actually get along and the arguing you see during a trial is just a part of the business.  There have been many times when my adversary and I have been going at it during trial, then we take lunch together and joke around with each other.  We all have a job to do and we know it, so we try not to let it get personal.  However, there are some attorneys who just don't get it and think that they have to genuinely be a dick to be good at their job.  When this happens, it can get very personal and you can truly wind up disliking that person.

Do you ever see or suspect that certain judges show favoritism along gender, race, age, etc?

Asked by Jamie Marz almost 12 years ago

Actually, I'm glad I can answer no to this question.  I really haven't noticed this before although I have seen favoritism from Judges before.  Usually though, that favoritisim is because a Judge may have a better relationship with one attorney over the other, or may dislike an attorney for the way he's behaved in his courtroom before.  I've also seen Judges show favoritism towards witnesses before, but I believe that was really just based on the witness either being really likeable or the witness lying through their teeth.  Thankfully, nothing to do with gender, race or age. 

How do lawyers pick jurors? What's the thought process?

Asked by Coma_toes almost 12 years ago

Picking a jury is by far the most politically incorrect process i've ever been apart of.  There are studies that show what kind of juror will be more favorable to a plaintiff or to a defendant.  Since, the thought process is to get people on your jury that will favor your side more than the other we use these studies as a benchmark for who we want on a jury.  Without getting too politically incorrect, i'll simply say this.  Juries in the Bronx give the highest verdicts of any county in America whereas juries in Manhattan, Westchester and Long Island tend to be alot more Defendant friendly and more conservative with their awards. 

I am currently involved in a personal injury case. Their side just submitted a doctor's report which contained untruths making it seem as though I was barely injured. Is this typical and how does the judge differentiate between what is truthful?

Asked by TiredTeacher over 11 years ago

Unfortunately this is the norm in personal injury lawsuits.  The Defendant has the opportunity to send you to a doctor of their choosing to examine you and write a report to be used at trial.  These doctors are basically on the payroll of the insurance companies.  As long as they keep writing reports which state that the Plaintiff isn't injured, they will continue to use them.  These doctors, who rarely actually treat patients anymore as a part of their practice, make millions of dollars writing reports and testifying for insurance companies and defendants.  Ultimately, it's up to a jury to determine if they believe the treating doctors for the Plaintiff, or this doctor that was paid for by the insurance company.  It's a terrible system, but nothing can really be done about it.  It's up to your lawyer to make their doctor seem like a fraud to a jury.

Why are damage awards higher when the defendant is rich? I never understood that. If an NBA player assaults me, why can he face $ millions in damages, while a regular Joe faces much less? Isn't the crime the same?

Asked by defcon0 over 11 years ago