901.372.5003 24/7 Live Call Answering
December 22, 2015 In Auto Accident, Civil Litigation, Personal Injury

Medical Care After a Car Wreck

car wreck medical care, personal injury lawyer memphis

Been in an Accident? Next Steps for Your Medical Care.

We have clients who have been involved in an accident, whether a car wreck, slip and fall, dog bite, or other injury, and they often ask what they should do about medical care, and whether it will hurt or help their court case. Our answer is always the same:  you and your healthcare providers should make your medical care decisions based purely on what’s best for your health.  No claim or lawsuit should ever affect your medical care decision-making.

Many also have questions about what to do immediately after an accident.  Here are some frequently asked questions and our typical responses. However, remember that each case is unique, and our lawyers can help you navigate your individual circumstances. Call us today at (901) 372-5003.

Should I seek immediate treatment for injuries after a car wreck?

Yes.  It is best to seek prompt medical care so that your injuries can be properly evaluated by trained medical personnel.  According to DMV.org, it’s important to understand that you may have an injury, even if you aren’t totally sure. Many insurance adjusters will hold delays in medical treatment against you, even assuming you were merely trying to do the right thing by taking a conservative, wait-and-see approach.

What if I’m concerned about the cost of medical care?

If you were injured in a car wreck, you may (and should) rely on your health insurance to cover your treatment. If not, but you have automobile insurance, your policy probably contains Medical Payment Coverage up to a certain amount, and so you may be able to recover some of your medical expenses from your own insurance company.  Depending on what happened to you and whether someone else is responsible, you may be also able to recover your medical expenses from someone else’s liability insurance company.

What else should I do after an accident if I think I might have a claim?

If you are able, get the contact information of any eyewitnesses. Get a copy of the Police Report. Take photos of your injuries. If you’ve been in a car accident, take photos of your car and the scene, if possible. If you are involved in a slip and fall or some other type of accident, take photos of the scene of the accident and its condition at the time of your injury. Keep a list of the medical providers you see, and the limitations and pain you suffer. Claims and lawsuits can sometimes take months to resolve, and you will be surprised at how memories fade.  Make a list of any prescription medications or other medicines that you have to take because of the accident, and keep records of the costs. Document any other expenses you incur because of the accident.

What if I have to miss work?

You may be entitled to recover for lost wages. Obtain written documentation from your employer of the days, hours, and wages you missed because of the accident.

Frequently Asked Questions

You can find answers to more Frequently Asked Questions on our website by clicking here.

 

Patterson Bray PLLC

8001 Centerview Parkway, Suite 103

Memphis, Tennessee 38018

(901) 372-5003 Office

www.pattersonbray.com

August 13, 2012 In Business Litigation, Civil Litigation, Estate Planning, General

Legal Problem Solving: Does Your Lawyer Merely Work the Problem? Or Solve the Problem?

Legal Problem Solving: Does Your Lawyer Merely Work the Problem? Or Solve the Problem?

legal problem solvingLet’s discuss legal problem solving. Does your lawyer merely work the problem, or solve the problem? There’s a difference, you know.

  • A cookie-cutter response vs. a creative solution
  • Reaction vs. a plan of action
  • “Winning” the lawsuit vs. avoiding the lawsuit
  • Churning legal fees vs. finding a cost-effective solution up front

I saw a blog post once detailing a masterful stroke of legal genius by the lawyers for Jack Daniels, and wanted to share it. It’s a prime example of the type of culture and approach we cultivate at Patterson Bray– solving the problem vs. merely working the problem.

Legal Problem Solving at Patterson Bray

Our clients don’t just want legal answers.  They want solutions.  So at every stage our goal is to focus on the following question to the client:

“What do you ultimately want to accomplish?”

Sometimes that means we have to act not just as legal advisors, but also legal counselors – asking questions, raising issues the client may not have considered, and then sometimes even gently prodding and steering clients to think beyond their immediate short-term emotions and goals.

In virtually every case, our clients appreciate our focus on long-term solutions.  That might mean, for example, our client accepting a short-term loss in exchange for saving a relationship with a customer and securing new business, renegotiating as opposed to litigating a contract, and realizing that the cost of vindication might sometimes outweigh the perceived benefits. Many clients have even remarked how unusual it is that a lawyer would suggest an option that they weren’t even aware of, and that would generate less in billed fees for the lawyer.

But, then again, that’s how we internally answer the very same question we put to our clients:

“What do WE ultimately want to accomplish?”

We want to uniquely serve the best interests of our clients so that they ultimately come back.  And refer their peers, colleagues, friends, and family.

And they do.  And we’re confident you will, too.

May 22, 2012 In Auto Accident, Personal Injury

Partially at Fault in a Car Wreck in Tennessee?

Partially at Fault in a Car Wreck in Tennessee?

partially at fault, car wreck lawyer in memphisLaw FAQ: I was in a car wreck in Tennessee, and I may be partially at fault. Do I still have a legal claim?

ANSWER:   Maybe.

You can take comfort in the fact that “slam dunk” cases rarely exist.  There are 2 sides to almost every story.  Indeed, real life is never quite so neat and tidy.  Many car crashes are the result of a number of related factors, circumstances and events on both sides that – when combined together – cause accidents to occur.

For example, someone might have run a red light and pulled out in front of you; however, you might have contributed to the problem by speeding, or not wearing your seat belt, or not paying as close attention to the road as perhaps you should have been.  Thus, while you didn’t necessarily cause the wreck, you may be wondering whether your own speed or inattention may have increased the amount of damage or injury caused.

And so the question is: do you still have a legal claim for your car accident or personal injury?

Well, the answer is: it depends.  Many people are partially at fault and some of them are still able to recover damages in a car wreck case.

Doctrine of Comparative Fault

Under Tennessee law, a defendant in a car wreck case is entitled to point the finger at another person (or multiple persons), including the plaintiff.  In other words, a defendant can ask a jury to assign fault for an accident, either in whole or in part, to someone else.  Legally, this is referred to as the “doctrine of comparative fault” – i.e. the jury is asked to literally compare the fault of the parties.

In practice, this means that the jury will listen to all of the competing evidence and then assign a percentage of fault or negligence to each person alleged to have contributed to the accident.   The total of the percentages must add up to 100%.  The jury is then asked to affix the amount of total damages suffered/incurred.

These fault allocations and damage findings determine whether, and to what extent, a plaintiff is entitled to recover.  Specifically, the damages recoverable by the plaintiff are based on the percentage of fault assigned to the defendant.

  • Example: If the jury finds that there were total damages of $100, and the defendant is assigned 75% of the fault compared to only 25% fault for the plaintiff, then the plaintiff would recover $75 (75% x $100).  The plaintiff wouldn’t be entitled to recover the percentage of damage that he himself caused.

Modified Comparative Fault

Note also that Tennessee follows the doctrine of modified comparative fault.  This means that if the plaintiff is found to be  50% at fault for an accident, then he or she is prohibited from recovering any damages at all. So, even if you are partially at fault for an accident, as long as you’re not 50% at fault, you can still recover.

  • Example:  Using the scenario above involving damages of $100, if the jury were to find the plaintiff and defendant equally at fault (50/50), then the plaintiff would recover $0.

Pure Comparative Fault in Other States

By comparison, some states like Mississippi utilize the doctrine of pure comparative fault, which means that the plaintiff can recover for any fault of the defendant, even a mere 1%.

  • Example:  Using the scenario above, if the car wreck  occurred in Mississippi and the defendant was 1% at fault, then the plaintiff would be able to recover $1, even though the plaintiff was 99% at fault.

Partially at Fault But Think the Other Driver was Responsible?

Each case is unique. It sounds cliche, but it’s the truth. At Patterson Bray, we will look at your case and advise you on the best way to proceed. If you have a question involving a  car or trucking accident or a wreck involving serious personal injury, please feel free to call our office at (901) 372-5003 for a FREE consultation.

We Represent Victims of Car Wrecks.

Visit our website to learn more about our work for car accident victims. You can meet our team by clicking here.

April 26, 2012 In General

Law FAQ: Negligence – Is the Other Driver At Fault for the Car Wreck? (Part II)

Law FAQ: Negligence – Is the Other Driver At Fault for the Car Wreck? (Part II)

In yesterday’s blog post, I listed the 5 basic elements for a negligence claim: duty, breach, injury, causation, and proximate/legal cause.

Today’s post will focus on the first 2 elements which, for the most part, comprise the most interesting and difficult issues that arise in connection with negligence claims:  duty and breach.

Negligence is commonly referred to as the “reasonable man” standard.  Stated differently, a driver involved in a car wreck would be considered negligent if taking some action that most average people would deem unreasonable under the circumstances.  Negligence can be predicated both on acts of commission (e.g. running a red light), as well as acts of omission (e.g. failing to pay appropriate attention to the road).

Basically, the rules of negligence boil down to requiring people to follow society’s basic “rules of the road” for reasonable conduct.  For the most part, it’s commonsense-type stuff.  The law of negligence is about reasonableness and balance.  It does recognize, for example, that some injuries are simply unforeseeable and/or sometimes unavoidable.

Stated in legal terms, a court will consider the issue of legal duty in terms of what is known as “reasonable foreseeability.”  This means that if your conduct would create a “reasonably foreseeable risk of injury” then you would naturally have an obligation to avoid the conduct, or to take reasonable precautions to protect innocent bystanders from the risk.  The rule is really nothing different than The Golden Rule that churches, mothers and fathers teach their children every day.

For example, will a driver be held liable if the brakes on his truck suddenly and without warning fail, and he winds up in a car accident?  Probably not, because the risk wasn’t necessarily foreseeable.   By comparison, though, if the brakes had been acting up previously, and the driver just ignored it and kept on driving the truck instead of taking it to the shop for repairs, then he probably would be deemed negligent in that situation.  Indeed, there was a known risk and he failed to take reasonable steps to protect others against a foreseeable risk of harm.

In other words, that driver would have breached his duty to those around him, and therefore he should rightfully be expected to make good on the injuries and damages unilaterally imposed on an innocent person.

This same analysis would apply to all sorts of things such as speeding, texting while driving, weaving too quickly in and out of traffic — i.e. things which impose an unreasonable and foreseeable risk of harm.

Note that the law of negligence is a far cry from the daily dose of nonsense you get from TV advertising, and from politicians.  Indeed, it is NOT the type of automatic, jackpot money grab that the ambulance-chasing TV lawyers seem to imply, and that the so-called tort reformers would likewise have you believe as part of selling their grossly exaggerated claim that “the sky is falling with lawsuits.”  To the contrary, the law does not provide for automatic liability whenever an injury occurs.  Likewise, it does NOT impose a duty to eliminate each and every one of life’s many risks.

The law of negligence is simply about the common sense “reasonable man” standard which is very much akin the Golden Rule — “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

Stay tuned for more about the question of how the law determines the winner of a lawsuit when — as is often the case in real life situations — both parties are somewhat negligent.   This is referred to as the issue of comparative fault.  Stay tuned.