If a person did surgery will he get the same amount if he didn't?

[Sara2008]

What is the name of your state?
New York


There was a car accident involving two cars. One was in the front and the second one at the back. In other words, the second vehicle crashed on the first one. And the driver who was in the first car got injured with his family.

The diver in the first vehicle was injured in his knee and other places too. and the doctor wants to do surgery for his knee. But what I want to know is, how much will he get if he did the surgery in his knee? and if he didn't do the surgery, will he get the same amount of money? or not?


Thank you for your time.


Take care,

-Sara

 

[ecmst12]

An injury requiring surgery is obviously more severe then one that does not. But it's impossible to say specifically. If he is trying to decide whether or not to have the surgery, the question of whether having it will get him a bigger settlement should certainly NOT influence his decision!!!!!!

 

[alnorth]

If the surgery to the knee is an obvious need that any rational person would do to improve his quality of life, and he elects not to do it in the hopes of worsening his condition to win a big payday, I would argue that it could hurt his case, because he does have at least some duty to mitigate his damages. Alternatively, assuming that refusing the surgery wouldnt worsen his condition at all, it could be harder to get reimbursed for medical expenses that you dont incur.

 

[You Are Guilty]

If the surgery to the knee is an obvious need that any rational person would do to improve his quality of life, and he elects not to do it in the hopes of worsening his condition to win a big payday, I would argue that it could hurt his case, because he does have at least some duty to mitigate his damages. Alternatively, assuming that refusing the surgery wouldnt worsen his condition at all, it could be harder to get reimbursed for medical expenses that you dont incur.

Well put. Here's some excerpts from an old trial memo:

It is the defendant’s burden to prove that the plaintiff failed to mitigate his damages. In deciding whether or not the plaintiff failed to mitigate his damages by not having an operation, the jury must decide whether or not the plaintiff acted reasonably in not having the operation. The Court of Appeals has held that surgery is not an exact science thus a plaintiff is entitled to reasonably rely on the advice of his doctor when determining whether or not to have an operation.

OP: in other words, you're not the first one to consider your potential settlement when deciding on whether to get an operation, and defense attorneys are trained to sniff out cases where plaintiffs do such things. Be forewarned.

 

[moburkes]

The first issue is that the injured party, in NY, claims coverage under his own PIP, for medical bills. The injured party only sues the at fault party for pain and suffering. How much liability does the at fault party have, since it appears that the money will need to be split by more than 1 person?

 

[racer72]

But what I want to know is, how much will he get if he did the surgery in his knee?

$27.49 and a gift card to Home Depot.