Identifying Pivot Points.
Restoring Flow.
the timely difference.
Different facts. Different circumstances. The same underlying issue - a client is injured - the insurer denies liability or there is some other complication and progress has stalled.
Each of the examples below reflects a point where a case was caught in a loop - and the step taken to restore direction.
Pre-existing spinal injuries.
Stability was the real baseline - not decline.
Headline Facts
Client had a 20-year history of significant spinal issues including four spinal fusions and two spinal stimulators with the last stimulator surgery happening just weeks before the subject accident.
Where It Stalled
The matter was treated as entirely pre-existing with minimal additional loss attributable to the subject accident. Medical opinion supported this and so did counsel's advice.
The Pivot Point
The client insisted the accident ruined her life. To prove it I ended up tracking 12-years of medication usage and I was able to objectively prove her condition had been stable despite the surgeries. I objectively proved the uncontrolled instability after the last accident.
Outcome
The case was reframed around the loss of what little function and independence she had left. Counsel's original upper range was $39k and the case ultimately settled for $180k.
Pre-existing amputation and open heart surgey.
In this case the smallest detail changed everything.
Headline Facts
Client was booked in for a routine CABG. But when no viable vein could be identified the only option left was a below knee amputation which triggered a heart attack. But that wasn't the claim.
Where It Stalled
The client suffered a fall in post-surgery recovery. His only injury was a 15MM reopening of his stump. Which had fully healed by the time his claim started. All his issues were said to relate to his amputation and heart surgery not his 15MM wound.
The Pivot Point
The 15MM wound healed with thin skin which caused excess pressure and pain when the prosthetic was worn. This made it impossible to wear and therefore the client was wheelchair bound. The 15MM wound was central.
Outcome
The case was reframed around the functional loss associated with being wheelchair bound and resolved for $29k without expert report and no economic loss component.
Intoxicated cyclist with no helmet on a stolen bike.
Not every reduction is relevant.
Headline Facts
Client had just celebrated his 26th birthday. The next day he was too drunk to drive so he rode a bike into town to get some food. He was still three times the limit, not wearing a helmet and rode past a sign warning of exiting cars into the path of a vehicle.
Where It Stalled
This case involved 3 separate liability issues (intoxication, no helmet and not adhering to the warning sign) as well as limitation issues involving incorrectly identified vehicles and missed nominal defendant limitation. The insurer held on to their liability report until after the 9 month limitation date (ie Nominal Defendant lim period).
The Pivot Point
Each reduction was isolated and tested independently: intoxication provisions did not apply to an unregistered bicycle, helmet use had no casual connection to the wrist injury and liability for the impact was not absolute.
Outcome
Liability was reduced to 50% and the insurer was estopped rejecting the matter on the basis that it was a nominal defendant claim for failing to warn prior to the expiration of the 9MTH period.
Cyclist admitted 100% fault.
But the driver had an opportunity to stop.
Headline Facts
Client was an experienced cyclist working as a business analyst. His wife was pregnant with their first child and he deliberately chose the safest bike path to work. Unfortunately he was unable to avoid two intersections. He was hit and almost killed going through the first.
Where It Stalled
Client rode against a red don't walk signal into the path of oncoming traffic travelling through green lights. He admitted to police he was 100% at fault and accepted total responsibility.
The Pivot Point
His path into the intersection was clear from approximately 60M+ away. He had to travel across 3 lanes of traffic on the opposite site before being hit in the middle lane vehicle. The two vehicles on either side saw the client and stopped meters ahead. The middle vehicle was not paying attention and did not stop prior to impact.
Outcome
We accepted the majority of fault however argued that the driver in the middle lane had an opportunity to stop the vehicle had he been paying proper attention to his surrounds. This case was rejected by 3 major law firms but eventually settled out of court for $270k.
Employee injured in public space.
The incident was random but the risk was foreseeable.
Headline Facts
Client was a fast-food restaurant supervisor who was assaulted whilst trying to clean up mess caused by a random stranger out the front of her shop.
Where It Stalled
Client placed herself directly in harms way twice. She was assaulted on the second interaction. The assault happened out the front of the shop on a public footpath. An almost identical case had just failed in court (judge said he it not failed on liability it would have been reduced by 80% for contributory negligence).
The Pivot Point
The fast-food restaurant was located in the most dangerous part of town and the assault happened at the most dangerous hour of the day. The roster had more experienced supervisors including males and the restaurant had failed to fix the silent security alarm meaning the client had to deal directly with the respondent out the front.
Outcome
Liability was eventually accepted and the matter settled for $75,000. Counsel had provided advice that the matter failed.
Each matter turns on a different point. Some require a single shift in perspective others require multiple issues to be addressed together.
In each case the objective is the same:
identify the roadblock that prevents the matter from resolving.
Have a confidential chat. Today.
A short conversation is often enough to determine whether I can assist.