As is true for general civil cases, most medical malpractice cases settle before needing a trial. But settlement isn’t automatically the right path for every case. There are scenarios where delaying a settlement or pursuing a trial is the right course of action. In the event you need legal help, contact our medical malpractice attorney in Las Cruces today.
You Should Not Settle Before Reaching Maximum Medical Improvement
Generally, your condition should be known and stabilized before you entertain a settlement offer. Maximum medical improvement (MMI) is the point at which your condition has leveled out and is unlikely to significantly improve with future treatment. Until you reach that point, your lawyer and medical providers won’t know the full extent of what your injury has cost you.
Settling early might seem appealing, especially when facing medical bills and a desire to move on. Once you sign a settlement, you can’t go back and request more money for additional surgeries, ongoing therapies, or long-term care that wasn’t active at the time you settled.
Insurance companies often push early settlement offers before a patient’s prognosis is fully understood. But waiting until you’ve reached MMI protects you from settling for less than your case is actually worth.
A Lawsuit and Trial May Be Necessary If the Defendant Denies or Undervalues Your Claim
While most malpractice claims settle, not every case involves a fair settlement offer. Medical defendants and their insurers sometimes deny liability, insisting that your condition was a risk of the treatment. Alternatively, they may dispute the severity of your injuries or offer a number below what your damages are worth.
In these instances, filing a lawsuit may be the only way to obtain a fair result. Your case is taken out of the hands of the insurer and put before a judge or jury who can decide liability. Even if your case proceeds to court, it can still generally settle before trial. In fact, the willingness to actually take a case in front of a jury changes the dynamic of negotiations.
Insurers who believe an attorney will settle for any reasonable offer have far less incentive to negotiate seriously than insurers who know the attorney is fully prepared to litigate the case to a verdict.
Pros and Cons of Settlement vs. Trial
Settlements offer more certainty than proceeding to trial. The settlement agreement spells out your rights and highlights the amount settled for. The case resolves faster, and you avoid the unpredictability of a jury verdict, the stress of testifying, and the possibility of losing in court. The tradeoff is that settlements may not always reflect the full value of your claim. Once accepted, the decision is final.
Trial offers the possibility of a larger recovery, particularly in cases with significant damages. Trial also creates a public record and, in some cases, systemic accountability for the defendant’s conduct. However, trials take longer, cost more to litigate, carry the risk of an unfavorable verdict. They also require the plaintiff to relive the experience through depositions and testimony.
An Experienced Attorney Can Help You Determine the Right Path
Whether settlement or trial is the better path for your case depends on the unique facts and damage. It also depends on whether the other side offers reasonable settlement offers and negotiates in good faith. An experienced malpractice attorney can help you identify the best routes for resolution as your case progresses. Call Coates & Johnson to learn more about your legal options.