| Read Time: 3 minutes | Dangerous Drugs

Zantac Lawsuit Attorneys for Plaintiffs Who Have Taken Ranitidine (Generic Zantac) Use Recent Supreme Court Decision To Support Their Claim

May 5, 2021 — Plaintiffs in the Zantac multidistrict litigation are utilizing the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Ford Motor Co v. Montana Eighth District. The March 25 decision in the Ford case held that state courts in Montana and Minnesota had jurisdiction over product liability claims against Ford despite the company not directly selling the defective vehicles in the states. Ford argued that in-state residents who were affected by crashes in Montana and Minnesota were not permitted to sue in their own state courts because Ford did not design, manufacture or sell the allegedly defective vehicles there. The Supreme Court unanimously rejected Ford’s argument and ruled that, because Ford was very active in selling vehicles in the two states, Montana and Minnesota state courts had jurisdiction to hear the plaintiffs’ cases.  Justice Elena Kagan stated in the court’s majority opinion that plaintiffs only need to show a connection between their lawsuit and the defendant’s actions in their state.  Ford had argued that the plaintiffs needed to show that the defendant’s actions in their state had caused their injuries.  The decision is popular and has already been cited in 31 cases, mainly to clarify the jurisdiction issue. Zantac lawsuit lawyers for plaintiffs, specifically those who took a generic version of Zantac (ranitidine), are also seizing the opportunity to use the recent ruling to their advantage.  The plaintiffs have faced a similar jurisdictional challenge that the Ford plaintiffs battled in the states of California and Massachusetts.  They argued in a brief filed on April 23, 2021 in West Palm Beach, Florida that the “law has been entirely overruled by Ford,” referring specifically to the 11th U.S. Court of Appeals but-for rule. Both Massachusetts and California have “innovator liability” laws that allow people who have taken generic versions of a drug to claim that the drug’s originators misrepresented risks in the drug’s labels.  The supreme courts of both states allowed claims under the laws which resulted in 2017’s T.H. v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp in California and 2018’s Rafferty v. Merck & Co Inc in Massachusetts. Despite those laws seeming to favor the Zantac plaintiffs, U.S. District Judge Robin Rosenberg, the judge over the Zantac MDL, dismissed the plaintiffs’ innovator liability claims in December 2020 on jurisdictional grounds.  Rosenberg cited a 2018 precedent from the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Waite v. All Acquisition Corp, stating that personal injury plaintiffs who are asserting specific jurisdiction are required to show that the defendant’s actions within the court’s home state directly led to the alleged injury.  The judge stated that the plaintiffs did not claim a causal link between their claims and the marketing activities in both California and Massachusetts by name-brand Zantac defendants. Judge Rosenberg allowed the plaintiffs to amend their complaint so that they could claim that the actions taken by the name-brand Zantac defendants in California and Massachusetts caused the plaintiffs to take the generic form of Zantac called ranitidine.  The new complaint explained that the marketing in the two states led to a higher demand for Zantac, and in turn caused higher sales of the generic version. On March 24, one day before the Supreme Court ruled on the Ford case, name-brand defendants Pfizer Inc, GlaxoSmithKline Plc, Sanofi SA, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Patheon NV moved to dismiss the amended claim.  They argued that they did not affect the introduction of ranitidine into the marketplace.  In the defendant’s brief, they said, “In short, while California and Massachusetts may choose to adopt their own novel tort principles governing companies based there, due process forbids them from applying those laws extraterritorially to hold the out-of-state brand-name manufacturers liable for the sales of other companies’ products.”  They continued with, “Plaintiffs’ highly attenuated theory of liability leaves them with no basis for specific jurisdiction.” The plaintiffs argued the opposite.  They claimed that the Ford decision requires plaintiffs to show that a defendant conducted business within the jurisdiction and that the plaintiff’s lawsuit relates to the defendant’s actions within the jurisdiction. The plaintiffs said that there is no doubt that name-brand defendants were involved in marketing in California and Massachusetts.  According to the plaintiffs’ application of the Ford decision, the defendants did not need to directly sell ranitidine in order to relate to the plaintiffs’ claims and hold responsibility for the failure to warn about both Zantac and ranitidine’s carcinogenic risk. Reference:  Frankel, Alison. “Zantac Generics Plaintiffs Hope SCOTUS Ford Decision Rescues Claims against Brand-Name Makers.” Reuters, Thomson Reuters, 27 Apr. 2021, www.reuters.com/article/us-otc-zantac-idUSKBN2CE2NX.

Continue Reading

| Read Time: 2 minutes | Defective Medical Devices

Bayer Pays Roundup Plaintiff To Appeal Case

In an attempt to get a case to the Supreme Court, Bayer AG has entered into a deal with Georgia doctor John Carson where he is required to appeal his Roundup case and continue fighting against the company. Carson sued Bayer in 2017, and after Judge R. Stan Baker in Savannah did not throw the case out at the company’s request, litigation moved forward.  Baker decided in December 2020 that Bayer had no duty to warn Roundup users about its cancer risk because the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had approved the product’s label.  Other U.S judges have rejected this type of claim, known as a preemption claim. For Judge Baker’s decision to impact other  Roundup lawsuit cases, Bayer needs a federal appeals court to agree.  The company entered into a settlement with John Carson’s lawyer, Ashleigh Madison, in order to ensure that Carson appeals.  Bayer will be paying Carson as long as he follows through with appealing the preemptive question to the U.S. Court of Appeals in Atlanta.  Carson must also surrender any claims that he won. Bayer defends its settlement, explaining in a statement that it will pay Carson an undisclosed sum.  However, Carson will receive more money if he wins on appeal according to court records. “The parties have reached an agreement to resolve the Carson case on confidential terms contingent on the outcome of future appellate review of the district court’s dismissal of his failure-to-warn claims on federal preemption grounds,” Bayer said. If Bayer succeeds in Atlanta and then has a case heard by the Supreme Court, the company could potentially save hundreds of millions of dollars.  The Supreme Court is likely to only hear Bayer’s case if there is a contradictory decision in a different appeals court.  Before any of this can occur, Bayer must first win in Atlanta.  The company has shown confidence in its argument, stating in a legal brief that laws and regulations “make clear” that the EPA’s approval of a Roundup label without a warning should decide the case. A Loyola Law School professor, Adam Zimmerman, also agrees that a favorable Supreme Court ruling on preemption could curb the steady stream of Roundup lawsuits. “If you win on preemption, and you win at the Supreme Court, that’s a win that works in federal court, in different circuits and across the state courts in a way that can finally bring an end to a significant piece of the litigation,” Zimmerman said. Madison has declined to comment, and Carson has not returned calls to his office. Reportedly Madison has shared with other lawyers that the settlement is the “best possible outcome” for Carson and that, under the deal’s terms, the appeal is in his “best interest.” Reference:  Joel Rosenblatt. “Bayer Deal Pays Roundup Plaintiff to Keep Fighting in Court.” Bloomberg, www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-04-21/bayer-deal-pays-roundup-plaintiff-to-keep-fighting-it-in-court.

Continue Reading

| Read Time: 2 minutes | Defective Consumer Devices

Roundup Lawsuit Lawyers Fight Back Against Corrupt Bayer Deal

May 4, 2021 — After Bayer AG entered into a deal with a plaintiff to keep him fighting the company in court, lawyers for the tens of thousands of other plaintiffs in the Roundup multidistrict litigation are calling out the company’s ill-intentioned move. Bayer is striving to attain a favorable ruling in the Roundup lawsuit litigation that claims exposure to its glyphosate-based herbicide leads to non- Hodgkin’s lymphoma.  The most recent step taken toward the company’s goal was entering into a deal with Georgia doctor, John Carson.  Bayer’s strategy is to win a decision from the Supreme Court that would undermine a key claim in the Roundup lawsuits and stop any more cancer cases from piling on top of the ones the company has already had to answer to. Bayer defended its deal, informing the court that the structure of the accord has been approved by other appeals courts. “The company has been completely transparent about its desire to appeal Roundup failure-to-warn cases on federal preemption grounds, and this settlement, which the plaintiff voluntarily agreed to, is an appropriate path for such an appeal,” the company said in a statement.   Roundup plaintiffs’ lawyers did not agree.  In a letter they penned to an Atlanta-based U.S. Court of Appeals on April 20, 2021, they wrote that Bayer’s actions were a manufactured “pay-to-appeal scheme” that will erode the U.S. system of justice if it’s permitted.  They also stated that, “The court should reject this brazen manipulation of our judicial system.” While Bayer disclosed a few details of the deal in a notice to the Atlanta court, it did not mention what the plaintiffs’ lawyers described as an onerous $100,000 penalty Carson is required to pay if he backs out of his appeal.  Bayer’s omission is described in the letter to be “on its face misleading, and speaks to the deceptive nature of this appeal.”  The letter illustrates the insidious plan by explaining that Bayer is “paying Carson to appeal and then threatening him if he does not follow through,” according to the letter. Carson has not responded to requests for comment and his lawyer, Ashleigh Madison, has declined to comment. The case is Carson v. Monsanto Co., 21-10994, occurring in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit (Atlanta). Bayer has offered to pay up to $11.6 billion to resolve existing Roundup lawsuits from approximately 125,000 consumers in the U.S. and future claims. New lawsuits are being filed almost every day. Reference:  Rosenblat, Joel. “Plaintiff Lawyers Accuse Bayer of ‘Pay to Appeal Scheme’ in Roundup Litigation.” Insurance Journal, 23 Apr. 2021, www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2021/04/23/611263.htm.

Continue Reading

| Read Time: < 1 minute | Defective Consumer Devices

Over 40,000 Roundup Lawsuit Claims Still Unresolved

May 4, 2021 — The multidistrict litigation (MDL) handling the lawsuits against Bayer Monsanto Roundup is teeming with over 40,000 unresolved claims that plaintiffs have developed non-Hodgkins lymphoma after exposure to the herbicide.  In re: Bayer Roundup Products Liability Litigation is seeing more plaintiffs decide to take their cases to trial because Bayer’s settlement offers are insufficient in providing the fair compensation they deserve.  Additionally, the Big Pharma company is falling under fire for its proposed settlement framework.  Roundup Lawsuit Attorneys charge that there is not clear guidance within the framework making it especially confusing and unreliable which results in particularly harsh treatment to the vulnerable who are suffering from the brutal fallout from cancer. Recently, Roundup Lawsuit lawyers have filed motions for clients with non-Hodgkins lymphoma looking to throw out a proposed settlement to the MDL, which would allow Roundup maker Bayer AG to continue selling the herbicide and protect it from future cancer lawsuits.  Instead of resolving all the lawsuits together, the settlement allows Bayer’s lawyers to negotiate individually with each law firm. So far, the juries of three different Roundup trials have delivered multimillion-dollar verdicts against Bayer AG. Reference:  “More than 40,000 Cancer Claims Remain Unresolved from Proposed Bayer Monsanto Roundup Weed Killer Lawsuit Settlement.” PR Newswire, Cision, 26 Apr. 2021, www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/more-than-40-000-cancer-claims-remain-unresolved-from-proposed-bayer-monsanto-roundup-weed-killer-lawsuit-settlement-301276971.html.

Continue Reading

| Read Time: < 1 minute | Defective Consumer Devices

3M Plaintiffs Win $7.1 Million In First Trial

May 3, 2021 — As more than 230,000 veterans, current service members, and more users of 3M earplugs have filed claims stating that the earplugs have caused them significant hearing loss rather than protecting them from it, the verdict of the first 3M lawsuit to go to trial was highly anticipated.  The bellwether trial consolidated the lawsuits of three veterans and lasted for five weeks in the U.S. District Court in Pensacola, Florida under Judge M. Casey Rodgers.  On April 30, 2021, a federal jury found that 3M Co. failed to warn about defects in its product and awarded the veterans $7.1 million. Each veteran received $2.1 million in punitive damages and the veterans’ individual awards were $340,000, $320,000, and $160,000. A 3M spokeswoman stated that the company is in disagreement with the verdict, saying that the plaintiffs did not meet the burden of proving the “product was defectively or negligently designed.” She also informed that the company will consider “multiple grounds for appeal.” Attorneys for the veterans were just as confident, stating, “The evidence is clear: 3M knew their earplugs were defective, yet they allowed our service members to suffer these life-altering injuries.” The next bellwether trial begins May 17. Reference: Randazzo, Sara. 3M Loses First Trial Over Military Earplugs. 30 Apr. 2021, www.wsj.com/articles/3m-loses-first-trial-over-military-earplugs-11619809398.

Continue Reading

| Read Time: 4 minutes | Dangerous Drugs

Pretrial Orders

March 6, 2021 – There have been many pretrial orders entered over the past few months in the Zantac/Ranitidine Multi-District Litigation (MDL) as referenced below. This list will continue to be amended as new orders are entered. The orders can also be found here:  https://www.flsd.uscourts.gov/zantac. March 2021  March 5:  Zantac Lawsuit MDL Pretrial Order # 61 – Order on Second Round of Motions to Dismiss  February 2021  February 25:  Zantac Lawsuit MDL Pretrial Order # 60 – Generic Manufacturer Defendant Supplemental Discovery Agreement  February 12:  Zantac Lawsuit MDL Pretrial Order # 59 – Ninth Census Implementation Order: Further Timelines for Registry CPF Deficiency Processing and Other Procedures  January 2021  December 2020  December 31:  Zantac Lawsuit MDL Pretrial Order # 58 – Eighth Census Implementation Order: Product Identification Collections for Remaining Filed Plaintiffs and Unfiled Registry Claimants by Retailer and Pharmacy Defendants  December 16:  Zantac Lawsuit MDL Pretrial Order # 57 – Order Regarding Initial Discovery of Distributor Defendants  November 2020  November 23:  Zantac Lawsuit MDL Pretrial Order # 56 – Seventh Census Implementation Order: Deficiency Process for Unfiled Claimants  November 23:  Zantac Lawsuit MDL Pretrial Order # 55 – Sixth Census Implementation Order: Access to Unfiled Claimant Census Plus Forms for Non-Generic Defendants  November 11:  Zantac Lawsuit MDL Pretrial Order # 54 – Deposition Protocol for Defendants’ Witnesses and Third Parties  October 2020  Oct. 21: Zantac Lawsuit MDL Pretrial Order # 53 – Fifth Census Implementation Order: Access to Census Plus Forms and Aggregated Data  Oct. 9: Zantac Lawsuit MDL Pretrial Order # 52 – Procedures for Dismissal of Defendants from the Master Complaints and the Individual Personal Injury Cases   Oct. 9: Zantac Lawsuit MDL Pretrial Order # 51 – Fourth Census Implementation Order: Product Identification Collections for Filed Cases by Retailer and Pharmacy Defendants   Oct. 9: Zantac Lawsuit MDL Pretrial Order # 50 – Third Census Implementation Order: Generic Manufacturer Production of Product Related Information   Oct. 5: Zantac Lawsuit MDL Pretrial Order # 49 – Order on Class Action Discovery Timelines   Oct. 5: Zantac Lawsuit MDL Pretrial Order # 48 – Remote Deposition Guidelines   Oct. 3: Zantac Lawsuit Amended MDL Pretrial Order # 47 – Document Discovery Schedule for Brand Manufacturers   September 2020  Sept. 29: Zantac Lawsuit MDL Pretrial Order # 46 – Order on Production of Defendant Discovery on Other Defendants   Sept. 29: Zantac Lawsuit MDL Pretrial Order # 45 – Order on Service of Discovery Requests and Responses  Sept. 25: Zantac Lawsuit MDL Pretrial Order # 44 – Order Authorizing Use of BrownGreer MDL Centrality Platform for Service of Short Form Complaints   Sept. 25: Zantac Lawsuit MDL Pretrial Order # 43 – Order Setting Forth Service of Process of Short Form Complaints on Generic, Distributor, Repackager, and Retailer Defendants   August 2020  Aug. 29: Zantac Lawsuit MDL Pretrial Order # 42 – Second Census Implementation Order: Temporary Census Plus Form Extension Due to Vendor Data Issue   Aug. 26: Zantac Lawsuit MDL Pretrial Order # 41 – Protocol For In Extremis Depositions   Aug. 18: Zantac Lawsuit MDL Pretrial Order # 40 – Protocol for Modifying Particular Defendants in the Master Complaints   Aug. 18: Zantac Lawsuit MDL Pretrial Order # 39 – Protocol for Voluntarily Dismissing Short-Form or Individual Long-Form Complaints in Their Entirety, for Dismissing Particular Claims, and/or for Dropping Particular Defendants   Aug. 16: Zantac Lawsuit MDL Pretrial Order # 38 – First Census Implementation Order  July 2020  July 31: Zantac Lawsuit MDL Pretrial Order # 37 – Protocol for Common Benefit Work and Expenses   July 30: Zantac Lawsuit MDL Pretrial Order # 36 – Order on Schedule for Rule 12 Motions to Dismiss   July 27: Zantac Lawsuit MDL Pretrial Order # 35 – Order Regarding Core Discovery of Retailer Defendants   July 13: Zantac Lawsuit MDL Pretrial Order # 34 – Order Regarding Initial Discovery of Generic Manufacturers   July 9: Zantac Lawsuit MDL Pretrial Order # 33 – Order Enumerating Additional Responsibilities of Generic Liaison Counsel   June 2020  June 18: Zantac Lawsuit MDL Pretrial Order # 32 – Order Concerning the Discovery Process and Dispute Resolution   June 18: Zantac Lawsuit MDL Pretrial Order # 31 – Procedures for Master Pleadings in Personal Injury Cases   June 18: Zantac Lawsuit MDL Pretrial Order # 30 – Stipulated Discovery and Case Management Schedule   June 11: Zantac Lawsuit MDL Pretrial Order #29 – Protocol for ESI Discovery   June 11: Zantac Lawsuit MDL Pretrial Order #28 – Preservation Order   June 3: Zantac Lawsuit MDL Pretrial Order #27 – Order Regarding Deadline for Filing of Notice of Appearance   June 1: Zantac Lawsuit MDL Pretrial Order #26 – Confidentiality Order   June 1: Zantac Lawsuit MDL Pretrial Order #25 – Protocol for Treatment of Privileged and Work Product Materials   May 2020  May 28: Zantac Lawsuit MDL Pretrial Order #24 – Order Relating to Initial Status Conference   May 27: Zantac Lawsuit MDL Pretrial Order #23 – Order Modifying Census Plus Deadlines   May 22: Zantac Lawsuit MDL Pretrial Order #22 – Order Establishing Defense Leadership Structure   May 14: Zantac Lawsuit MDL Pretrial Order #21 – Order on Applications for Defense Leadership   May 8: Zantac Lawsuit MDL Pretrial Order #20 – Order Appointing Leadership   April 2020  April 28: Zantac Lawsuit MDL Pretrial Order #19 – Order Attaching Amended Appendix A    April 15: Zantac Lawsuit MDL Pretrial Order # 18 – Order on Production of Records for Initial Census for Deceased and Incapacitated Claimants   April 10: Zantac Lawsuit MDL Pretrial Order #17 – Order Appointing Interim Retailer Liaison Counsel   April 3: Zantac Lawsuit MDL Pretrial Order #16 – Order Rescheduling Initial Conference, Establishing April Deliverables Team, and Scheduling Interviews for Leadership Applicants  April 2: Zantac Lawsuit MDL Pretrial Order #15 – Order on Procedures for Implementing Census   March 2020  March 20: Zantac Lawsuit MDL Pretrial Order #14 – Order Authorizing Continuation of Work by Interim Teams   March 20: Zantac Lawsuit MDL Pretrial Order #13 – Stipulated Order Setting Forth Service of Process Procedures on Certain Defendants   March 20: Zantac Lawsuit MDL Pretrial Order #12 – Stipulated Order Appointing Special Master   March 20: Zantac Lawsuit MDL Pretrial Order #11 – Stipulated Order...

Continue Reading

| Read Time: < 1 minute | Dangerous Drugs

Update On Status Of Generic Ranitidine Manufacturers’ and Retail Distributors’ Motion To Dismiss

March 6, 2021 – The Court has still not ruled on the motion to dismiss made by big-name distributors such as Walgreens and Walmart, but we are watching for the ruling and will update when it comes.  Reference: “United States District Court.” 20-MD-2924-Rosenberg – In Re: Zantac (Ranitidine) Products Liability Litigation | Southern District of Florida | United States District Court, 5 Mar. 2021, www.flsd.uscourts.gov/zantac.

Continue Reading

| Read Time: < 1 minute | Defective Consumer Devices

Court Rules That Plaintiffs’ Cases Against 3M Can Proceed

September 3, 2020 – The recent denial of 3M Company’s attempt to have the courts dismiss litigation from 150,000 veterans suffering hearing loss or tinnitus from faulty earplugs means one of the country’s largest multi-district cases is moving closer to settlement or trial. “It doesn’t mean the plaintiffs win, but it means they can pursue their state tort claims,” said Michael Green, a torts professor and scholar at Wake Forest University School of Law in North Carolina. This is just the latest step in a lengthy dispute between 3M and the government, as well as individuals, stemming from a 2016 whistleblower suit brought by a 3M competitor. It alleged that earplugs manufactured by Aearo Technologies, which 3M acquired in 2008, were faulty and led to hearing impairments for American troops serving in Afghanistan and Iraq between 2003 and 2015. Reference: Smith, Katherine Snow, 3 September 2020, Thousands of Veterans Suing Over 3M Earplugs are Closer to Resolution, accessed 20 October 2020 https://www.legalexaminer.news/health/thousands-of-veterans-suing-over-3m-earplugs-are-closer-to-resolution Thayer, Rose L., 29 April 2020, Judge Unseals Hundreds of Pages of Documents in Veterans’ Lawsuit Against 3M Over Earplugs, accessed 20 October 2020 https://www.stripes.com/news/veterans/judge-unseals-hundreds-of-pages-of-documents-in-veterans-lawsuit-against-3m-over-earplugs-1.627827

Continue Reading

| Read Time: < 1 minute | Dangerous Drugs

Number Of Zantac Cases In MDL As Of 2/17/2021

February 17, 2021 – The United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation reported at their panel that there were currently 562 cases pending in the Zantac Lawsuit MDL. Reference: “Zantac Lawsuit: February 2021 Update – Zantac Cancer Claims.” Drug Watch, www.drugwatch.com/zantac/lawsuits/.

Continue Reading

| Read Time: 4 minutes | Car Accident

Can I Get Compensation for Pain and Suffering? (From a Serious Accident)

If you sustained injuries in a serious accident due to someone else’s negligence, you could have the legal right to bring a claim for your damages. Depending on your accident circumstances, you could receive money for your injuries, property damage, lost wages, and pain and suffering. Compensation for pain and suffering is often a large part of your injury claim, and it’s dependent on the type and severity of your injuries. To learn more about filing a pain and suffering injury lawsuit, contact the skilled personal injury lawyers at Gerling Law. What Are Pain and Suffering Damages? If you are making a claim for pain and suffering, you’re demanding compensation for the physical and emotional pain that you endured because of the accident. If not for the person who caused your injuries, you would not be in the pain you are. Pain and suffering damages fall under what’s known as general or non-economic damages. That means there is no specific number that relates to your pain and suffering from a car accident. General damages are subjective, and you will likely think your pain and suffering is worth far more than the insurance company does. Calculating Your Pain and Suffering Compensation To reach a value for pain and suffering, you must look at a variety of factors. Please don’t rely on settlement calculators you find online as they are not going to give you accurate results. These calculators do not consider everything that a judge, jury, or insurance company will look at when they determine an amount. No two claims are exactly alike, which is why there’s no average settlement amount for car accident claims either. Someone who suffered only minor injuries will not receive the same pain and suffering compensation as someone who is permanently disabled after the collision. Here are some examples of questions that insurance adjusters, juries, and judges consider when determining a dollar amount for your accident pain and suffering: What type of impact did the accident have on the plaintiff’s life? Did the plaintiff lose a lot of time off work? What types of injuries did the plaintiff sustain in the accident? How long did the plaintiff’s injuries last? What types of medical treatments did the plaintiff have? Will the plaintiff require additional medical treatment? Can the plaintiff return to work? Did the plaintiff sustain any permanent impairment? What is the usual physical and mental pain that people typically experience with these injuries? What is the plaintiff’s prognosis? When it comes to calculating pain and suffering, some insurance companies and juries might use one of two methods. The first is known as the multiplier method. You multiple your economic damages by a number between 1.5 and 5, depending on the severity of your injuries. For example, if your medical bills and loss of earnings total 30,000 and you use a multiplier of three, then your pain and suffering is worth $90,000. The second option is the per diem method. This option assigns a specific value to every day that you were injured. The cut-off date is when you reached your MMI, or maximum medical improvement. Proving Pain and Suffering in a Serious Accident Before you can successfully collect any compensation for your pain and suffering, you must provide evidence showing why you deserve the amount you’re asking for in your claim. Always document all your medical visits, and see a therapist about any emotional turmoil after the accident. When you’re submitting copies of your records, include the opinion of your medical health professionals too. You should have information from all your providers on your injuries and how severely you’re injured. The reports should talk about how your injuries will impact your life and what you are going through pain wise. In some cases, it may be necessary to hire a medical expert. This person is a neutral third party who will confirm the reports and evidence submitted by your medical doctors. Some accident victims start a journal after the accident. It can be therapeutic, but it can also help your case. You can describe your daily life: How did the accident change your life? How did it impact your ability to take care of daily tasks, etc. Describe your pain, using a pain scale. Your case may not go to litigation for one or two years; having that information written down can help jog your memory and provide valuable evidence on how drastically the accident affected your life. Contact Our Experienced Personal Injury Lawyers Today If you were seriously injured in an accident caused by someone else’s negligence, you deserve to be compensated for your damages, including pain and suffering. However, pursuing a claim can be complicated, especially when your injuries are severe. Don’t let the insurance company take advantage of you and offer you less than your case is worth. Instead, let one of our seasoned personal injury lawyers fight for the compensation you deserve. At Gerling Law, we have decades of experience representing injured victims just like you in Indiana, Kentucky and Illinois. We have a proven record of success and have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars on behalf of our clients. Contact our office today to learn more about how we can help. Remember, Go with Experience. Go with Gerling®.

Continue Reading