While looking through the Costco monthly magazine, I saw a recipe for Crispy Chocolate Ice Cream Mud Pie. To be honest, I didn’t really look at the recipe. I know that I am not going to buy the ingredients and whip that up. Not interested in the real details.
I was focused on the picture of that chocolate ice cream. I looked closely as though I was investigating an accident scene; so that I could see every detail of the crust, the chocolate chips and the drizzled syrup.
I know several people that don’t eat ice cream or don’t like chocolate. I’m guessing that they would just turn the page when seeing that picture, or the words “ice cream” or “chocolate”.
The above does make sense because we all have different taste buds. That’s the only way that I can understand anyone eating Brussel Sprouts. Looks more like a green mind without an IQ.
When a person goes to the emergency room, the Emergency Doctor doesn’t ask “Hey, did anyone bring an accident report along”. I’ve never seen mention of accident scene photos or a discussion of property damage in any ER records. Those doctors and nurses just treat the injuries.
After leaving the emergency room, many clients then seek additional treatment at the family doctor or a chiropractor or physical therapist. Of course, if something is broken or they have some serious problems, then the referral might be to another specialist.
Again, I don’t see any records of those treating doctors, with any mention of an accident report or any discussion of how the cars were damaged. They treat injuries and complaints and discuss things like spasms and radiating pain.
When insurance companies get involved in claims, their attention seems to want to steer clear of any mention of medical records. Instead, they will do things like send pictures of the vehicles in the crash or write letters that say “based on these pictures, I don’t believe that your client could be very injured from this accident”.
I suspect that they use these same arguments when they try to go out to the persons house. They want to force or “encourage” a settlement, before I am retained, or before a client may be fully healed or finished with treatment.
An accident report is not allowed to be mentioned as evidence during a trial. In fact, even the term “accident report” is a basis for a mistrial.
A jury is to decide a case based solely on the evidence and the weight that they give to the evidence. Even though a police officer may be highly qualified in investigating a crash, that officer may have no special accident reconstruction training or any property damage knowledge, for evidence purposes.
An accident report cannot have some special evidence significance. So, the officer can testify to the “investigation notes” but not formally to the “accident report”. The legislature decided that an accident report has too much significance for the average person and might influence a jury without the appropriate foundation.
Finally, I just want one paragraph on defense hired experts. I do believe that juries understand that defense experts get more defense work, when that opinion is favorable to the defense. So, it’s not unusual for them to not speak to any treating physicians. Instead, many of them will attempt to focus on property damage or pictures at the scene. Strange though, when they are treating physicians not paid by defense, they don’t seem as concerned with non-medical materials.
Insurance companies and defense doctors don’t seem to like the “chocolate” or “ice cream” of the case. They prefer just moving on to pictures and not getting into the specifics of the details of the injuries and crash (recipe). Of course, they do ignore pictures when the cars look like crushed cans. Then, they look for something more favorable like blaming the client.
And, now pic o’ …. a bit of medical cartoon humor.