A personal injury lawyer should encourage a client to take a certain approach to the task of recovering from one or more injuries. That approach calls for the utilization of mitigation tactics. Use of such tactics keeps a client’s injury from getting worse. The absence of an injury’s improvement would suggest failure on the part of a possible future plaintiff (the client) to follow through with a recommended treatment.
Evidence that plaintiff has agreed to utilize mitigation
The injured accident victim seeks immediate medical attention. The same victim searches for a facility that can offer the optimal form of treatment. That action bears no resemblance to the act of looking for the cheapest of all the available treatments.
Victim’s readiness to follow the doctor’s advice can function as evidence. Victim stands ready to refrain from doing any activity that has been identified as one to avoid. At the same time, the doctor’s injured patient does not hesitate to proceed, after getting the green light to perform any specific activity. That includes willingness to return to work, should the doctor declare that such an action would not reverse the gains made up to that point.
While a client’s injury lawyer in Campbell River seeks out evidence of negligence on the part of the guilty party, that same future plaintiff needs to create more proof of the harm done by such negligence. Observations on the plaintiff’s injury can serve as proof of that harm. Hence, such observations can add to the weight of the existing evidence.
Ideal mindset of plaintiff that intends to pursue mitigation to the fullest extent possible
Plaintiff’s mind remains focused on instructions that have come from the treating physician. A smart plaintiff plans to follow through with the prescribed way for treating a given injury. Consequently, plaintiff does not place a priority on the success that might be achieved by following the doctor’s orders. In addition, each treatment’s nature and details gets explained to the appropriate lawyer.
Cost concerns do not become plaintiff’s excuse for failure to pursue specific tests, remedies or therapies. Even mention of costly accommodations does not upset the mitigation-minded plaintiff/client. Instead, the plaintiff/client searches for a source of financial help. After all, today, all victims/plaintiffs have the ability to explore the crowd funding experience.
Any one of them could at some point go online and present their case. In that way, any one of them could reach out to those that might be willing to offer monetary assistance. That fact deflates any argument for abandonment of those methods that can keep an injury from demonstrating a diminished level of recovery. At the same time it supports the argument that favors a wise and well-directed use of mitigation.