In a recent change, Alberta’s legislators have capped the amount that a victim can seek for damages related to pain and suffering. That limit applies to the pain and suffering that could be linked to any minor injuries.The measured value of that cap increases from year to year. It was $4,000 in 2004, and is now $5,080. What does that mean for any accident victim that has suffered a minor injury?
First, that same victim should consider the possibility that his or her injury should not really be classed as “minor.” Injuries that deserve to be classed as minor do not force the injured party to deal with a serious impairment. A serious impairment is one that can keep someone from performing specific tasks. They need assistance not just medical aid but constant housekeeping and daily chores that need to be completed till they can get back on their feet. Additionally, those with minor or serious disability might need more assistance.
Other established characteristics of minor injuries
Such medical problems do not allow the victim to appear before a physician with any demonstrable or definable evidence of bodily harm.
Such problems have not been linked to any signs of a neurological defect.
Such problems do not introduce the types of issues that have become associated with a fracture or a dislocation.
The cap’s purpose
A victim’s awareness of that cap can cause an adult with a minor injury to have serious considerations about the wisdom behind any attempt to file a lawsuit against the responsible driver. That same adult can go after monetary compensation for other damages, such as medical treatments or loss of income. Yet, personal injury lawyers in Red Deer can detect a weakness in the province’s policy.
That weakness gets hidden by the cap’s stated purpose. It does seem logical to discourage the filing of lawsuits against drivers that have not acted in a way that caused great bodily harm to be done to any other driver or to any passenger. Still, medicine has not yet advanced to the point where physicians can seek out the slightest evidence of bodily harm or note every possible sign of a neurological defect.
Yes, it has made some remarkable advances. It has witnessed the introduction of new types of diagnostic tools. Of course, a patient’s complaints might not provide a doctor with a reason for using such a tool. A physician might not be told by a patient about a mild symptom, one that could indicate the need for that particular doctor to search more carefully for any spot where the patient’s body has failed to respond normally. Furthermore, a doctor might lack any apparent reason for ordering the sort of test that would aid detection of a neurological defect.