A victim of an accident that must now live with chronic pain has reason to file a lawsuit against the responsible party. Still, by filing such a lawsuit, the same victim becomes saddled with two additional problems. The first problem concerns proving that the guilty party was responsible for the accident that has caused the victim’s pain.
The second problem relates to the acting of proving the existence of the chronic pain. After all, it cannot be seen, and is almost impossible to measure. Hospitals try to measure patients’ pain by having them look at a series of faces. The series goes from a smiling face to one that depicts the effort to deal with tremendous pain. The courts have a different way for assessing the degree to which a given victim must deal with one or more painful sensations.
Methods lawyer can use to prove a client’s pain in court
Personal injury lawyer in Burnaby can present detailed medical records, which have come from the doctor that has been treating the victim’s injuries. Lawyer’s client has provided his or her legal counsel with a personal journal, one that explains the nature of the journal-writer’s pain from day to day.
Jurors can be provided with a chance to hear testimony from friends or co-workers of the victim. Their testimonies can explain how the pain has affected the victim’s daily life and behaviors. Lawyers can also seek out expert medical experts and have them testify in court. Such experts can explain how a specific injury might trigger development of a painful sensation in a particular region of the body.
What an expert might know about faces
As stated above, hospitals sometimes ask patients to measure their pain by pointing to one face in a series of faces. Each visage in that series depicts the expression that could be associated with a given level of pain. An expert would not show a group of faces to a patient, but the expert’s contact with others, such as nurses might add to the information that can come from someone with recognized expertise in some area.
For example, a neurologist’s expertise might have been acquired through assessing the information provided by nurses. The neurologist may have spoken with more than one nurse that had used faces to gain a sense for a given patient’s level of pain. Hence that same neurologist might be able to explain to a jury how a painful sensation can be measured.
Consider the extent to which such an explanation could prove quite useful. It would demonstrate the ways that members of the medical profession strive to deal with a patient’s complaint, regarding any pains. Since a lawyer has introduced the expert that has provided the jury with that explanation, the jurors would have reason to believe the expert’s testimony. After all, if a physician feels convinced of a patient’s pain, why should a jury member feel compelled to question the existence of that same painful sensation?