Why Do Some Injury Cases Become Heavily Disputed Even After The Defense Admits Fault For The Accident?
Disputes arise because a trial is seen as a credibility contest. Defense lawyers may admit fault but dispute the extent of injuries to minimize their client’s liability. This strategy helps them avoid what is known as the “BS tax,” where juries penalize parties for making implausible arguments. By focusing on fewer contestable points, defense attorneys aim to conserve their credibility and potentially sway the jury.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
What Are The Most Common Arguments Defense Attorneys Use To Challenge Injury Causation?
Defense attorneys frequently argue the presence of preexisting conditions as a primary defense. While some cases, like immediate emergency surgeries, are hard to dispute, most other injuries, especially chronic ones, are contested by attributing them to preexisting conditions. This defense is often employed even when medical records do not support it, as it relies on suggesting natural wear and tear rather than trauma from the incident.
Why Do Preexisting Conditions Become Such A Major Issue When Injury Causation Is Disputed?
Preexisting conditions become a focal point because they allow the defense to argue that the injuries were not caused by the accident but by existing issues. MRIs can show the condition of spinal discs but cannot determine the cause. The natural aging process can alter discs, which the defense uses to suggest injuries resulting from normal wear and tear rather than the incident. This argument exploits the limitations of medical imaging technology.
Why Do Imaging Studies Become A Major Battleground When Defenses Argue Injuries Existed Before The Accident?
Imaging studies, like MRIs, show the current state of a disc but not how it got that way. Without pre-accident imaging for comparison, the defense can claim that the injury was preexisting, regardless of symptoms only manifesting post-accident. Juries may be swayed by these arguments, as MRIs do not provide a timeline, leaving room for defense experts to question causation based solely on the images.
How Do Defense Experts Separate The Accident From The Medical Treatment A Person Receives Afterward?
Defense experts use various tactics, such as suggesting the injuries are fabricated or a result of greed. They might claim the injuries existed prior, re-diagnose conditions, critique the treatment plan, question the cost of medical bills, or argue against future medical needs. These strategies aim to undermine the plaintiff’s claims by challenging the necessity and appropriateness of the medical response post-accident.
Can Delayed Symptoms Make It Harder To Prove An Injury Was Caused By The Accident?
Yes, delayed symptoms can complicate proving causation. Although people often delay seeking medical attention, defense attorneys may use these delays to question the legitimacy of the injury. Juries might give undue weight to these arguments, despite common knowledge that individuals may not immediately realize the severity of an injury or illness, leading to gaps in medical treatment.
Why Do Prior Medical Records Become Heavily Contested Evidence In These Cases?
Prior medical records are pivotal because they can support or undermine claims of preexisting conditions. Defense attorneys often use these records to argue that injuries were not caused by the accident. However, in Texas, if an injury was asymptomatic before the incident, a jury can be instructed not to deduct damages based on preexisting conditions. Despite this, the defense frequently leverages any past medical issues to suggest the plaintiff’s current condition is unrelated to the accident.
What Usually Decides Cases Where The Accident Is Clear, But Injuries Are Disputed?
Two main factors often decide these cases: the credibility of the plaintiff and the mechanism of the injury. Physical evidence, such as vehicle damage photos, can decisively illustrate the severity of an accident, aiding the jury’s perception of the claimed injuries. When physical evidence is inconclusive, the plaintiff’s credibility, along with testimonies from friends, family, and experts, becomes crucial. The jury’s belief in the plaintiff’s account can significantly influence the outcome.