5 PROVEN BENEFICIAL ARIZONA CAR ACCIDENT LAWS
- Coverage of Expenses: Arizona Car Accident Laws provide a comprehensive coverage plan for victims of car accidents. This means that if you have suffered a leg or arm injury in a car accident, under the purview of Arizona Car Accident Laws, you are entitled to claim compensation for medical bills, rehabilitation expenses, and any necessary medical equipment or modifications to your home.
- Non-Economic Damages: In addition to medical expenses, the law in Arizona also allows you to claim non-economic damages. This means that under Arizona Car Accident Laws, you can seek compensation for pain and suffering, emotional distress, and loss of enjoyment of life, which are often significant in cases of serious leg and arm injuries.
- No-Fault Insurance Not Applicable: Unlike some states, Arizona operates under a “fault” system for car accidents, a unique feature of Arizona Car Accident Laws. This means the person who caused the accident is responsible for paying the damages. This can be beneficial if you’ve suffered a significant leg or arm injury, as you’re not limited by your own insurance policy’s coverage limits.
- Comparative Negligence: Arizona Car Accident Laws follow the doctrine of “pure comparative negligence.” This means that even if you were partially at fault for the accident that caused your leg or arm injury, you can still recover damages. However, your compensation will be reduced in proportion to your percentage of fault.
- Statute of Limitations: According to Arizona Car Accident Laws, you have two years from the date of the car accident to file a personal injury claim. While this might seem like plenty of time, complex cases involving severe leg and arm injuries can take a while to fully assess, so it’s beneficial to start the process as soon as possible.
LEG AND ARM INJURY CLAIM IN ARIZONA CAR ACCIDENT LAWS
Auto Accident Victim: “S.M.” (all names are changed for privacy) 50 years old, male.
The Accident Date: The accident occurred on March 31, 2016, around 8:00 in the morning, in Phoenix, Arizona, under the jurisdiction of Arizona Car Accident Laws.
Accident Location: The accident happened at the intersection of South 48th Street and East Warner Road in Phoenix, Arizona.
Accident Description: S.M. was riding his motorcycle while wearing a helmet, down the road when the at-fault driver in a Range Rover swerved in front of his motorcycle, causing S.M. to brake suddenly. Due to the sudden application of his brakes, S.M. hit the handlebars of his motorcycle and onto the pavement. The at-fault driver pulled off the roadway into a parking lot. The Phoenix Police Department responded to the scene of the accident to conduct an investigation under Arizona Car Accident Laws. Phoenix Police spoke to both drivers and assessed that no one needed immediate medical attention. There was not a police report written as a result of this accident, which caused a significant issue with the liability determination. All these were reported to the victim’s Personal Injury Attorney.
Citation: No citation was an issue in this matter.
MEDICAL TREATMENT DIRECTLY AFTER THE ACCIDENT FOR LEG AND ARM INJURY
How Medical Treatment Impacted S.M.’s Auto Accident Claim.
Medical Treatment: On the day of the collision, S.M. presented to Arizona General Hospital with complaints of moderate to severe pain in his bilateral arms, chest, left elbow, and left leg. Following an examination, he got identified with multiple bilateral abrasions in the upper extremities and contusions to left ribs. He got a Ketorolac injection to help with the pain from his leg and arm injury.
Three weeks after the accident, as his pain persisted, S.M. presented to Eric Cerre, NMD with complaints of left rib pain in the mid-axillary region. He reported shortness of breath when taking a deep breath and a dull pain at rest. He had shallower breathing secondary to his pain. S.M. noted multiple abrasions on his left arm, bilateral elbows and forearms, and bilateral knees. Following an examination, Dr. Cerre diagnosed him with cervicalgia, cervical sprain/strain, thoracic pain, contusions of the left ribs, and myofascitis. Dr. Cerre administered four trigger point injections to Mr. Mangan’s affected regions. S.M. has been treated with Dr. Cerre a total of five times over 3 weeks. Again, all these were reported to the Personal Injury Attorney.
Results
Total Medical Bills: S.M.’s medical bills totaled $4,724.66 for his leg and arm injuries, as well as the other injuries sustained.
Lost Wages: S.M. did not claim lost wages as a result of this Arizona accident.
Health Insurance: S.M. had health insurance at the time of the Arizona accident and used his health insurance to defray some of the cost of treatment.
Client’s Car Insurance: S.M. had car insurance at the time of the Arizona accident through Countrywide Financial. S.M. did not receive any compensation from his insurance policy for bodily injuries.
At-Fault Car Insurance: The at-fault driver had car insurance at the time of this Arizona accident through Hartford. Hartford never accepted liability on this claim.
Final Settlement: Final settlement was never reached in this matter as Hartford refused to accept liability for the actions of its insured. The lack of police reports, citations, and corroborating witnesses undermined the validity of S.M.’s claim. S.M. did not have a personal policy that would allow for compensation in this matter, specifically, S.M. did not have a Medical Payments policy on his car insurance.
Conclusion and Compensation
After a significant effort to settle this matter, S.M. got released from Personal Injury Attorney’s representation because he did not wish to move forward with the litigation. This case had several issues which made it difficult to move forward. Ultimately, due to the inability to reach a compromise with the at-fault driver’s insurer. The high costs of litigation, S.M. chose not to move forward. Litigation would have been necessary to have a liability determined by a jury, judge, or arbitrator. Given the limited amount of medical expenses and the conflicting witness testimony, the costs of litigation far outweighed the conceivable settlement paid if S.M. had won at trial.
