can i sue for pain?

[jwnewell001]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? ALABAMA

I want to know if I can sue the guy who caused me to separate my ac joint in my shoulder. I will be undergoing surgery in a week to fix it. I have constant pain and had to move in with my sister due to the fact that I cant get myself out of bed, cook, shower or anything on my own. The incident happened at work. I am a bartender, after I cut the customer off he was asked to leave. He did so till he decided he was mad and wanted to come back in. I asked him again to leave which at this time he didn’t. I escorted him out the door at which point he grabbed me and we began to wrestle and we fell and the shoulder injury occurred. Work is paying for all medical bills but I have no way of paying my normal bills. Is their anything I can due to sue this guy and how do I go about doing so if I can?

[JakeB]

Based on your post, it sounds like you could have a case for battery. If you can prove battery, then you'd be entitled to compensatory damages that includes lost wages, medical bills, pain and suffering, and other out-of-pocket expenses that you incurred. You also could be awarded punitive damages.

This is something you're probably going to want to hire a lawyer to do for you, though you could bring the lawsuit yourself in small claims court if you keep your request to no more than $3000.

[You Are Guilty]

If you filed a police report and the guy was arrested & found guilty, you'd have a much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much (get the hint?) easier time suing him for your pain and suffering.

[Zigner]

Based on your post, it sounds like you could have a case for battery. If you can prove battery, then you'd be entitled to compensatory damages that includes lost wages, medical bills, pain and suffering, and other out-of-pocket expenses that you incurred. You also could be awarded punitive damages.

This is something you're probably going to want to hire a lawyer to do for you, though you could bring the lawsuit yourself in small claims court if you keep your request to no more than $3000.

Medical expenses are being paid by the employer (w/c).

[JakeB]

Medical expenses are being paid by the employer (w/c).

So what?

Did the employer pay the medical bills on behalf of the drunk?

[Zigner]

So what?

Did the employer pay the medical bills on behalf of the drunk?

OP has no out-of-pocket medical expenses. It's really not a difficult concept.

[JakeB]

OP has no out-of-pocket medical expenses. It's really not a difficult concept.

That's not how it works.

Didn't your 7 second Google search uncover the collateral source rule? Has Alabama reformed it? Possibly, but your answer is not based on it. You're just throwing out wild guesses.

[Zigner]

That's not how it works.

Didn't your 7 second Google search uncover the collateral source rule? Has Alabama reformed it? Possibly, but your answer is not based on it. You're just throwing out wild guesses.

OP's in Alabama.

[JakeB]

OP's in Alabama.

Really? What tipped you off?

[Zigner]

Really? What tipped you off?

It makes your response moot

[ecmst12]

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.

[JakeB]

It makes your response moot

Oh, of course!

That made sense.



Here's what my own 7 second Google search uncovered ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collateral_source_rule):[/url]

The collateral source rule, or collateral source doctrine, is a common law evidentiary rule that prohibits the admission of evidence that a victim's damages were or will be compensated from some source other than the damages awarded against the Defendant. For example, in a personal injury action, evidence that the Plaintiff's medical bills were paid by medical insurance, or by Workers' Compensation, is not generally admissible.

Of course, Alabama could have reformed that rule. Well, can you believe that Wikipedia actually provides a link to the reformed laws of each state? Convenient!

Ala. Code § 6-5-520:

Sets forth the state legislature's intent that plaintiffs be adequately compensated for injuries, but that they not receive compensation more than once for the same medical expenses.

Applicable only to injuries directly related to product liability cases.

Maybe your 7 second Google search turned up something different, but you haven't shared. Of course, you wouldn't begin to know what to look for since you have no legal education or experience.

For the second time today: Why do you offer legal advice here?

[You Are Guilty]

Oh, of course!

That made sense.



Here's what my own 7 second Google search uncovered ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collateral_source_rule):[/url]



Of course, Alabama could have reformed that rule. Well, can you believe that Wikipedia actually provides a link to the reformed laws of each state? Convenient!

Ala. Code § 6-5-520:


Maybe your 7 second Google search turned up something different, but you haven't shared. Of course, you wouldn't begin to know what to look for since you have no legal education or experience.

For the second time today: Why do you offer legal advice here?

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

[Zigner]

Oh, of course!

That made sense.



Here's what my own 7 second Google search uncovered ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collateral_source_rule):[/url]



Of course, Alabama could have reformed that rule. Well, can you believe that Wikipedia actually provides a link to the reformed laws of each state? Convenient!

Ala. Code § 6-5-520:


Maybe your 7 second Google search turned up something different, but you haven't shared. Of course, you wouldn't begin to know what to look for since you have no legal education or experience.

For the second time today: Why do you offer legal advice here?

Oh brother.
Sorry you couldn't be bothered to find this before spewing...

Section 6-5-545
Evidence admissible that medical expenses will be reimbursed; information subject to discovery.

(a) In all actions where damages for any medical or hospital expenses are claimed and are legally recoverable for personal injury or death, evidence that the plaintiff's medical or hospital expenses have been or will be paid or reimbursed shall be admissible as competent evidence. In such actions upon admission of evidence respecting reimbursement or payment of medical or hospital expenses, the plaintiff shall be entitled to introduce evidence of the cost of obtaining reimbursement or payment of medical or hospital expenses.

(b) In such civil actions, information respecting such reimbursement or payment obtained or such reimbursement or payment which may be obtained by the plaintiff for medical or hospital expenses shall be subject to discovery.

(c) Upon proof by the plaintiff to the court that the plaintiff is obligated to repay the medical or hospital expenses which have been or will be paid or reimbursed, evidence relating to such reimbursement or payment shall be admissible.
(Acts 1987, No. 87-189, p. 261, §6.)

[JakeB]

Oh brother.
Sorry you couldn't be bothered to find this before spewing...

Section 6-5-545
Evidence admissible that medical expenses will be reimbursed; information subject to discovery.

(a) In all actions where damages for any medical or hospital expenses are claimed and are legally recoverable for personal injury or death, evidence that the plaintiff's medical or hospital expenses have been or will be paid or reimbursed shall be admissible as competent evidence. In such actions upon admission of evidence respecting reimbursement or payment of medical or hospital expenses, the plaintiff shall be entitled to introduce evidence of the cost of obtaining reimbursement or payment of medical or hospital expenses.

(b) In such civil actions, information respecting such reimbursement or payment obtained or such reimbursement or payment which may be obtained by the plaintiff for medical or hospital expenses shall be subject to discovery.

(c) Upon proof by the plaintiff to the court that the plaintiff is obligated to repay the medical or hospital expenses which have been or will be paid or reimbursed, evidence relating to such reimbursement or payment shall be admissible.
(Acts 1987, No. 87-189, p. 261, §6.)

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.

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.

Go ahead and have the last word.