Self-Actualization through Accident Claim Help

Others as Means
Fortunate, truly fortunate, are claimants who look at the claiming process as more than a mere procedure to obtain their compensation. Because they see the same as an opportunity to shatter their personal limits and transcend their misconceived restrictions, they finish the process not just with an impressive bank account but also with a new personality, a new humanity, a more hopeful and invigorated will to life. A fundamental question which serves as a marker discriminating those who end up renewed in spirit and those who end up enriched in a materialistic way only is “How should claimants approach accident claim help advice?”

Those who answer that they should rely on other people’s advice frame their experiences within the paradigms of dependence and stupefying subservience. In their apathy or perplexity, they are more than willing to sacrifice their intelligence in exchange for ease and leisure. They finish the process without learning anything because they have not exercised any mental muscle. We look at them and turn away in pity and disgust. Those, however, who answer that although other people are the starting points of learning, that nevertheless it is our duty as autonomous individuals to evaluate what they say and adapt them to the unique circumstances of our case, its inherent special qualities that only we are cognizant of, will end up feeling reborn and worthier of their compensation. They have done the law – and their sense of dignity – justice.

The Umbilical Connection
Why should looking for a person who can offer us excellent accident claim help be an issue when it is generally understood that all the advice that we will ever need will be presented to us by whoever we hire to act as our lawyers? Why should there still be a need to listen to other people, especially laymen, when it can be proven that not only are their pieces of advice untutored in the technical school of law, but are also sometimes conflicting with what our solicitors say?

The answer is simple: lawyers make mistakes too. Even if laymen are not qualified people to correct lawyers, this does not mean that they can never teach them anything. What laymen and the claimant himself can contribute to the legal process is a more judicious ascertainment of facts. Lawyers are experts only on the matter of the law. But cases are decided not just on legal points, but also on factual points. Whether or not anything happened in a certain way can only be answered by those whose minds are not confined within a complicated theory. Simple people, even children, can be used to bolster assertions of fact because they are credible, despite their want of knowledge in the law.

Using Laws to Demand Compensation for Whiplash Injury

The Intent of the Law
It is a truism that in formulating an argument, the first requisite is the provision of the appropriate law. Claimants and their counsels need to locate the necessary statute or precedent which will bolster their positions and enable them to win their cases. Nevertheless, despite the arduousness of research, plaintiffs and defendants must not think that the entire job of litigation consists of searching for laws and cases alone. For the truth is that this is only the beginning, the gate which when passed, opens up a broad vista of new obligations to satisfy.

The immediate task that awaits claimants and their counsels after locating the pertinent laws that they need is the interpretation of its contents. In technical language, this act of understanding or deciphering what a law means is called statutory construction. In demanding compensation for whiplash injury, for example, claimants need to see how our tort laws on that subject should be read. The well-settled guidelines regarding this type of hermeneutics are three: ordinary meaning, historical reference, and wholeness. That is to say, in order to declare with authority what a certain statute denotes, they must read the words contained therein using their plain and non-technical meaning, refer to the debates and speeches given by the law’s framers, and compare each provision with each other and read them in harmony.

Qualifications for Holdings
By now, the term ratio decidendi should be familiar to you. Plainly put, the ratio of a case is that part of it wherein the court explains its reasons regarding its decision. As a plaintiff demanding compensation for whiplash injury in a country whose jurisprudence is dominated by case law, you must know that more than merely quoting statutes, you need to cite precedents that contain a ratio that supports your contention in order to convince the courts of the justice and fitness of your accident claim. Another word for the ratio is “holding.”  Thus, when anyone asks what the holding of a case is, he is in fact asking what the doctrine enunciated in that case is and when it can be applied.

Two determinations, however, must make you circumspect. For one thing, there are certain kinds of cases which have no ratio. First, cases that are not resolved because they are moot and academic obviously have no holding. Doctrines are generated only when actual controversies are resolved. Without a real conflict, the courts will not act. Second, dissenting opinions also do not count as holding. Only the opinion of the majority is binding. Another thing you must study is the fact that not all holdings remain valid until today. Doctrines are regularly though infrequently overturned in favor of new ones.

My Education

In life, I am content to dispense with overly metaphysical wondering. All I need is to ask myself whether or not a certain activity is useful. If it is, then I do it. If it is not, then I desist. Beyond that my weak brain cannot muster another step. This attitude is inherent in my personality, I think. Thus, when I filed No Win No Fee whiplash claims, I was not surprised when the only consideration I asked myself was purely that of utility.

Should I file No Win No Fee whiplash claims? It was useful to receive compensation. Thus I did it. Should I hire a lawyer? Again, the same answer and the same action. Should I work hard in collecting testimonials and witnesses? No difference in my reply. And so on. What is not useful, as I saw while thinking about my claims, was to just sit around doing nothing while my neck injury was every day becoming worse and my injurer smugly falling into complaisance. I don’t understand that. What is the use of strutting around the person you injured just because he has not filed a case against something you know you did wrong? It is beyond me.

Eventually, I did receive my compensation. As a last farewell to that horrible experience, I went beyond myself and attempted to just distill from the whole thing what learning could be useful for me. On the bright side, I learned quite a number of good things. First, people can be kind to you if you do not approach them aggressively. Lawyers, too, are just the victims of stereotypes. They are not ambitious and profit-oriented monsters. At their best, they are their clients’ guardians. At their worst, however, they are their clients’ own devils, their partners in a cannibal relationship. Money is not always good to have. In fact, sometimes it gets in the way of happiness. On the dark side, I saw that people are not always impelled by reason when they go to court. There are times when they are merely driven by passion or jealousy or mere intent to annoy.

Prospective Applications of Accident at Work.co.uk Claims

Effects of New and Repealed Laws
What happens when in the middle of trying your Accident at Work.co.uk claims, a new law was suddenly passed which drastically changed the parameters of the compensation system? For example, suppose that you filed a moderate whiplash claim today, the expected range of compensation being anywhere from £4,575 – £14,500. Now, the day after, Parliament passed a law that stipulated that no moderate whiplash claim should be awarded anything more that £50. What would happen to your claim?

Of course such a situation would not be likely to happen, but it does embody a certain principle which is held dear by our courts – the prospective nature of law. In this case, unless the law expressly states that it is retroactive, it will not affect your claim because it is your right to have any lawsuit you filed to be processed and judged strictly in accordance with the laws which were existent at the time you began it. Even if the laws which governed the case you demanded had been repealed or scrapped, it would still retain a de facto power in your situation. This is in fact a good thing. New laws or repeals of old laws cannot take effect in situations where they affect a vested right or impair the obligation of contracts.

Official Capacity
Studying the different kinds of legal personalities which employers possess is the key in filing a winning Accident at Work.co.uk claims. The most integral distinction you must keep in mind is that which identifies your employer in his official capacity and in his personal capacity. This differentiation is essential to know because work accident claims can only be deemed proper when addressed towards acts done in the first and never in the latter.

Put precisely, as an employee, you can only demand compensation from your employer only and specifically to negligent acts he committed while he was functioning as your employer. You can demand work negligence claims against him for hiring incompetent workers, providing unsafe equipment, ignoring safety rules and policies, and littering the workplace with all kinds of obstructions. You cannot, however, demand work accident claims against him if he accidentally runs his vehicle over you while on the way home because he is no longer bound to practice his duty of care towards you during non-working hours. The right action to take, in this case, is to demand car accident claims because you are suing not his negligence as an employer, but his negligence as a private citizen. In case you file a work accident claim against him here, then expect to have your claim dismissed.

Using Precedents to Win Accident at Work Claims

Landmark Cases
Much of what comprises “advice” from the Internet today concerning accident at work claims can be reduced into one cardinal principle: consult a lawyer. This apparently benign command is in reality nothing more than a pathetic hook to snag the reader’s interest in order to fill up a law company’s customer quota. We are not convinced by such moronic subterfuges. Surely, people, and Britons at that, can digest stronger meals of advice than this puny and spurious crumb. Surely, we deserve better, not the least because we can do better.

To practice what we have preached, people must know that there are quite a lot of things they can do in fact in order to win their claims besides having to contact a lawyer. In case they filed accident at work claims, for example, they can read the pertinent laws about these kinds of claims, such as The Health and Safety Act. Beyond that, they can also study by themselves exactly how English jurisprudence works, in particular its prudent and well-settled emphasis on precedents. They can even do more. In searching for precedents, whether in the library or in the Internet, they can qualify their research by focusing on landmark cases, since these are the ones whose binding power dominate the rest and compel them into obedience. The doctrine of stare decisis can be mastered by laymen if they are serious enough. This mastery, however, can only be reached if they did more than just to consult a lawyer.

Identity of Facts
That the law is an incurably technical field is a principle enunciated today by two diverse groups but for complementary reasons. On the one hand, we have the armies of lawyers, who in their interest to keep their field closed and restrictive, for its very imperviousness is the source of its power, proclaiming the study and interpretation of the Law as inevitably technical every day and everywhere. On the other hand, we see the swarms of pusillanimous claimants who slink behind their lawyers’ backs, eagerly agreeing because they are incapable and unwilling to flex their backbones and exercise their privilege and right to legal empowerment. The first cannot bear to make the Law open because their status would concomitantly suffer with such an expansion; the second because their weak constitutions would crack under the weight of the responsibility of acting as real human beings.

We cannot support either. Lawyers and claimants must both make the Law more accessible and known because only then will it cease to be a possibly unjust force. Whether in demanding accident at work claims or whiplash claims, both groups must understand that it is in the interest of the society for them to shred their arrogance and inhibitions.

This is especially true for claimants. They must know the Law to protect themselves from unethical lawyers. For example, they should study just exactly how precedents establish binding power because in a Common Law system such as ours, the courts retrospect in order to reach a decision.

Understanding Lawyers

You wonder why lawyers, whether accidents at work claims lawyer or whiplash claims lawyer or holiday claims lawyers, are all grumpy and impatient. You see them frowning whenever the conversation turns to subjects unrelated to the point. You hear them curse when summoned from the piles of paperwork they are submerged in. You smell the unmistakable odor of nicotine or alcohol in their breaths. When you grasp their hands for a handshake, you feel nothing more than an automatic tug, a movement so devoid of sympathy and life, symbolic of their eternal discontent with social formalities and mundane ceremonies.

You then judge them.

You think them inconsiderable boors. You look at their work and their faraway stares and think them impolite, arrogant, snobbish, myopic, putrid, ambitious, vain, and speculative. You smell the aroma pervading their offices, an odor so unwelcoming even mice and roaches dare not trespass. You hear them talk and in the undercurrent of their voices you trace hints of concealed superciliousness.

You then judge them all the more.

You should not. For all kinds of lawyers, especially those who work in the industry of tort claims, such as accidents at work claims, are only unsociable because of the backbreaking burden they carry. Contemplate their lives and you will see why. Imagine their lives so far, having worked for numerous years tirelessly memorizing and annotating laws and codes, many of which can be traced back to the time of the Romans. Then imagine the sleepless nights they had to endure in order to prepare for examinations and recitations, every day feeling the pressure to excel and the fear of failing. Imagine them finally graduating and then witnessing a disorienting revelation, the kind which wracks a fresh graduate’s soul, the tremendous earthquake of disjunction echoed by the conception that law school litigation is different, very different, from real life litigation.

Thus, let lawyers be.

They have to bear the burden of representing others. They have to bear the burden of understanding both sides of a question. They have to bear the burden of the public’s intrusive gaze. But most of all, they have to bear the punishing stereotypes of a world which hates lawyers and tolerates them only because its inhabitants cannot live in peace.

Why is a Medical Solicitor - No Win No Fee Agreement is Not Expensive?

Putting the two terms of “medical” and “solicitor” together sometimes equals one thing to accident victims – “expensive.”

On their own, medical doctors are already expensive. The same goes for solicitors. So in the minds of accident victims, putting them together can only equal something that is outrageously expensive to surpass their individual costs.

However, while 1 +1 = 2 in the world of math takes place all the time, Medical + Solicitor ≠ Expensive can happen in the world of law. Thanks to No Win No Fee agreements, hiring an expensive medical solicitor does not have to feel like an accident victim is buying an entire island in the Bahamas.

The reason behind this is that a medical solicitor - no win no fee agreement comes absolutely free to a client.

Interestingly, the agreement only indicates part of an accident victim’s obligation – if the solicitor does not win the case, the accident victim is not charged any legal fees. But if the solicitor wins the case, it is the Tortfeasor, or the person who caused the accident, who pays the legal fees of the accident victim’s solicitor.

This is the reason why in the legal world, the equation of “Medical” plus “Solicitor” does not always have to equal “Expensive.”



How Much Does a Medical Solicitor - No Win No Fee Agreement Cost?


The word “cost” means several things to different people. For some, the word “cost” may mean something financial, such as the price of something. So when a person says that their shoes cost then ₤100, it means that was the price they paid for the shoes.

For other people, the word “cost” may be non-financial and would equate more to an outlay. So when a person says that telling the truth may cost them their job, it means that being honest is in exchange for losing work as part of retaliation.

This is the nature behind a medical solicitor - no win no fee agreement as it has financial and non-financial costs to it. But as it will be noted, none of them are applicable to the accident victim.

In the present, the financial cost of hiring a medical solicitor is high. The best ones are not cheap, and the more complicated the case, the higher one is expected to pay. Fortunately for accident victims, they do to not pay a thing because it is the Tortfeasor, or the person responsible for the accident who pays the financial cost.

In the past, the non-financial cost of filing a negligence claim is getting fired from work. Unable to punish an employee for filing a claim, companies take revenge by terminating their employees’ work contract. Fortunately for accident victims, the law today prohibits this act of reprisal. By removing this threat, accident victims and witnesses do not have to pay the price of telling the truth anymore.

Cost can mean different things to people. It can be financial for some and non-financial for others. However, the one thing these costs have in common for medical solicitor - no win no fee agreements is that accident victims don’t have to shoulder them at all.

Free Really is Free for a No Win No Fee Lawyer

One of the things that attract buyers to certain services is the freebie that comes along with it. Massages may be included when a high end room is rented. Backstage access is thrown in when top tier concert tickets are bought. And free meals are part of a first class flight from London to New York.

But these so-called freebies are not really free because a customer ends up paying for it as part of the main product or service they buy. The marketing team only makes it look like it is free, but people sometimes end up paying more for them when they are bundled this way.

Thankfully, in there are some things that are really still free in the world. Take the case of lawyers who works under a No Win No Fee agreement; the services they provide is advertised as free. And while someone still has to pay for their services, the beauty of it is that the client is not the one who does it. The Tortfeasor, or the person responsible for the injury, is the one that gets to foot the bill.

With that in mind, it can be argued that these lawyers are not free at all. But if one were to think about it, hotel guests, concert audiences, and passengers actually end up paying for their freebies while accident victims do not. In the case of no win no fee lawyer, free really means free for his clients.



Tortfeasors do not Get a Free Ride with a No Win No Fee Lawyer


One of the benefits that accident victims have today is that they are able to hire lawyers who will not charge them a single penny for their services. The reason why they are able to do this is because clients hire them through a No Win No Fee agreement which practically guarantees a client a winning verdict or negotiation. Should a client’s case be lost in court, there is no obligation to pay the lawyer due to this being stipulated in the agreement.

Some may look at this as getting a free ride from lawyers, but this could not be further from the truth because a no win no fee lawyer will still charge someone for the services they render; and that someone is the Tortfeasor, or the person responsible for the injury.

If found guilty, a Tortfeasor becomes responsible for shouldering the medical expenses incurred by an accident victim as part of his treatment. The expenses may include the cost of medicines, the bill covering surgery, and all the payments required for post-operation activities, like rehabilitation.

Not only that, but the Tortfeasor is also responsible for paying all the expenses incurred during the course of an injury claim proceeding. This means paying for his own lawyer as well as for the lawyer of the injured person.

Injury victims may look like they are getting a free ride from their lawyers, but that can not be further from the truth. It is the Tortfeasor that pays for the injury victim’s lawyers; and it is this person who will not be mistaken for getting a free ride.