Personal injury lawyers link the phrase pain and suffering with this term: non-economic damage. It is next to impossible to pair a sensation of pain with any specific amount of financial damage. Still, anyone that has been injured has experienced both pain and discomfort.
A calculation used by insurers:
Total up the cost for treatment of the victim’s injury. Multiply that sum with a number between 2 and 5. The more severe the accident, the higher the number that should be selected as the second factor in this equation.
The second factor does not have to be a number between 2 and 5. If the victim has been involved in a catastrophic accident, it would probably be better to use a figure between 6 and 10. You could not win a case for pain and suffering by using a figure greater than 10.
An alternate means for calculating the pain and suffering compensation:
Select a reasonable figure to be used as a fixed day amount. This would be a dollar amount. Multiply that fixed day amount with the number of days that the victim reported feeling a sensation of pain. The product suggests the financial damaged caused by the victim’s painful sensations, in combination with various other discomforts.
What method would a personal injury lawyer use?
A personal injury attorney would not be required to use any particular method. Still, the judge and jury would need to see some evidence that the injury suffered by the attorney’s client had caused that same client to suffer damages. An injury is considered a damage.
Lawyers tend to prefer whatever method results in suggesting the largest value for a given client’s pains. Indeed, a Personal Injury Attorneys in Rocklin can urge a judge the consider the results of a particular calculation. That is certainly the case in California.
According to California’ laws, a judge cannot put a cap on the size of the award for pain and suffering. Consequently, an attorney has the right to argue for utilization of a specific means for calculating the non-economic damage. If the defense team could not present a good counter-argument, the judge would have little reason to reject the request made by the plaintiff’s attorney.
What could the plaintiff’s lawyer do if the judge ruled against utilization of the lawyer’s proposed method for calculating the non-economic damage?
That attorney could focus on the extent to which the client lost his or her income, while recovering from the injury. This would be similar to the approach that calls for multiplying a fixed per day amount with the number of days that the client experienced pain. The judge could not question the plaintiff’s right to seek a full reimbursement of lost income.