can i sue for pain?

[JakeB]

So I'm confused. You're saying that the plaintiff can get awarded compensation for his medical bills that worker's comp picked up?

In product liability cases, he cannot. In other personal injury cases, he can (though the jury has the option to consider other sources of recovery in determining an award if evidence was presented).

[Zigner]

Two things:

First, don't pretend that you knew anything about the collateral source rule prior to reading my post. You were just throwing out wild guesses.

I'm sorry, B-rated Jake. Don't ASSume you have any clue about what I do or don't know.

Second, that law doesn't prevent recovering twice. It just states that evidence of other sources of recovery can be admitted for the jury to consider. So, you're WRONG.

Ahhh, now the backpedaling starts.

Go ahead and have the last word.

Nah, I'll leave it up to you. You like to hear yourself talk.

ETA: I'm done with you Jake. You really have no clue.

[ecmst12]

And that ENTIRE exchange really didn't provide any useful information for OP.

[You Are Guilty]

And that ENTIRE exchange really didn't provide any useful information for OP.

In a sense it does - it tells the OP to avoid listening to JakeB's replies.

Senn v. Alabama Gas Corp., 619 So.2d 1320 (Ala.1993):

[Beanie711]

And let's not forget that Wikipedia is only the best source ever when looking up laws and regulations....

[JakeB]

I'm sorry, B-rated Jake. Don't ASSume you have any clue about what I do or don't know.

Oh really? Well then why did you post an irrelevant law? As it turns out, a bit of research uncovered the fact that the law you quoted only applies to medical malpractice cases.

And for the record, I was not stating a fact that the collateral source rule had not been reformed in Alabama. I'm the one who brought it up and the fact that Alabama may have reformed it, remember (when I quoted Wikipedia, that truly was just 7 seconds of research since I wasn't the one making the claims)? But you were clueless about the collateral source rule and you still have no idea whether it applies in Alabama in the OP's case. He's not suing his doctor!

[JakeB]

Senn v. Alabama Gas Corp., 619 So.2d 1320 (Ala.1993):

Good find. You're right, but not for the reasons that Zigner gave. You and I both know that he was and is clueless about it.

By the way, why so rude? I don't think I've offended you at all, have I?

[ecmst12]

I find your arrogant and argumentative manner offensive. Your need to prove other posters wrong (whether they actually are or not) takes precedence over any desire to offer useful, relevent, and practical information to the OP.

[JakeB]

I find your arrogant and argumentative manner offensive. Your need to prove other posters wrong (whether they actually are or not) takes precedence over any desire to offer useful, relevent, and practical information to the OP.

Isn't that par for the course here? I can't even count the number of times people like Zigner have ignorantly attacked my answers, claimed I was wrong with no support, sent me the *rolling eyes* face. They do it to everybody all day long. From my perspective, I'm fitting right in.

But have you even read this thread? I posted first, and Zigner decided to try to correct me about a very petty and useless point. It was not started by me.

Maybe I should have initially shut him up by pointing out that my original post stated "medical bills" and "other out of pocket expenses." Obviously, I was making the point that any medical bills that would be reimbursed would have been an out of pocket expense. If I meant out of pocket expenses in addition to medical expenses, then I wouldn't have used the word other.

Instead of pointing that out I just went along with Zigner's irrelevant game.

[ecmst12]

The posts from both of you on this topic were pointless filler.

[You Are Guilty]

Good find. You're right, but not for the reasons that Zigner gave. You and I both know that he was and is clueless about it.

By the way, why so rude? I don't think I've offended you at all, have I?

If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, did it still fall? Regardless of his reasoning, Zig reached the right conclusion. (I take no position on the way in which it was presented). Not everyone has access to Lexis or Westlaw.



PS: Not sure why you felt it was "rude" reply - I post my sources. In fact, on the Rude-Richter, it barely registered a 1. (Go back through some of my other posts if you want to see what rude really looks like )

And now that this tangent has been closed off, we return to the original post, already in progress.

[ecmst12]

More likely, OP has been thoroughly scared off by all the childish bickering.

[JakeB]

If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, did it still fall? Regardless of his reasoning, Zig reached the right conclusion. (I take no position on the way in which it was presented). Not everyone has access to Lexis or Westlaw.



PS: Not sure why you felt it was "rude" reply - I post my sources. In fact, on the Rude-Richter, it barely registered a 1. (Go back through some of my other posts if you want to see what rude really looks like )

And now that this tangent has been closed off, we return to the original post, already in progress.

The remark about ignoring my posts isn't rude? And why would you write that when you must realize by now that I have a better than average understanding of the law? How many other members here would have brought up the collateral source rule? You and maybe one or two others.

And I disagree that it makes no difference how Zigner reached his conclusion. A broken clock is right at least twice a day, but it's still worthless. Gee, how many people has he misled this week?

[JustAPal00]

OP, worker's comp should be replacing your income as well as covering your medical bills. Not only that, if you end up with any permanent disability from it, you will get a lump settlement at the end of your treatment for it.

Even if you COULD sue the drunk and win, what makes you think he's got thousands just sitting around waiting for a judgement to pay? At BEST, after a long and costly legal battle, you will wait several years longer before you see any money from it - and that's if ever. Not gonna help you pay your bills now.

Workers comp is definitely your best bet for getting bills paid now. If you are having difficulty with the claims process, you should consult a WC lawyer.

This is a good answer. I had the same thing happen to me when I tended bar, except it was 60 stitches to my face and a concussion. I consulted a lawyer who told me If I was able to recover any money, I'd have to first reimburse workers comp. Not to mention before the lawyer would even take the case I had to pay his retainer and would have to pay him win or lose.