The defense lawyer was looking at your x-ray.
From the emergency room.
After your car accident you were taken to the ER.
You were badly hurt.
Or so you thought.
You were in pain.
In your back.
Your lower back to be specific.
The pain wouldn't go away.
Not with pills.
Not with IV medication.
Not with rest.
Not with heat.
Not with ice.
It just wouldn't go away.
Every time you turned in bed you were in pain.
Every time you got out of bed to walk, it hurt.
Whenever you bent over to tie your shoes the pain was unbearable.
Constant pain.
Unrelenting pain.
Pain so bad you just wanted to crawl back into bed and make the world stop running around you.
Here you are an entire year later.
Sitting in your attorney's office.
In his conference room.
Being questioned by a lawyer who represents the person who hit you that day.
That driver who was careless.
His lawyer is now asking you questions.
Lots of them.
He's nasty.
He's obnoxious.
You want to reach out and slap him silly.
But you withold your desire to do that.
That's not appropriate in a lawsuit.
You'd get arrested.
For assault and battery.
Don't do that.
It's not good for you or your case.
This is a 'civil' lawsuit.
One that seeks money as a form of compensation for all your injuries.
The defense lawyer is questioning you as if you're the one who caused your accident.
You did nothing wrong.
You following the traffic rules.
You didn't run the red light.
He did.
You were doing everything you were supposed to do.
But now the defense lawyer has a nasty edge to his questions.
He's antagonizing.
He's goading you.
He's baiting you.
He's pushing your buttons.
He wants to see how far he can push before you lash out at him and lose your cool.
This will be very useful information for when you go to trial a year down the road.
Then he can do the same thing at trial.
He's mocking you right now.
He's looking at your X-Rays.
He gets you to admit that you were in pain in the emergency room.
He gets you to admit the ER doctor told you that your X-Rays were 'normal'.
He gets you to admit that your X-Rays showed no fractures.
"You didn't break any bones, right?"
"You were told that you had no fractures, correct?"
"You didn't get a cast on any part of your body, true?"
"You weren't sent home with crutches, right?"
"None of your bones were broken, correct?"
He knows the answers to all these questions.
So do you.
The jury doesn't.
Yet.
You know why he's asking all these questions about broken bones.
The jury doesn't yet know why.
You'd love to tell them when your case gets to trial.
You want to turn to them on the witness stand and shout that the defense lawyer is a liar and a cheat.
You'd love to tell the jury that the defense lawyer's client isn't telling the truth.
But you can't do that.
Not through your direct testimony.
Your lawyer will take care of that though.
The defense lawyer wants the jury to SEE that you have no broken bones from this accident.
He wants to SHOW the jury that BECAUSE you had no fractures, there's no way you could have all this pain in your back.
He's showing off your x-rays.
He's trying to correlate the amount and type of your pain with the fact that there are no visible fractures on your X-Rays.
"This X-Ray shows your fine, Mrs. Jones, isn't that right?"
"This X-Ray shows you have no broken bones, true?"
"You were told in the emergency room that your x-rays were fine, right?"
He doesn't get it.
Maybe he does and he's just trying to be deceptive.
Maybe he's trying to trick the jury.
Maybe a bad defense is all he's got to work with.
Whatever the reason, he's trying to get the jury to SEE that there's no reason you should be in so much pain if your X-Rays are all negative for fractures.
Here's the problem...
YOU CAN'T SEE PAIN ON AN X-RAY.
X-Rays are not designed to detect pain.
X-Rays are not designed to tell when someone is or isn't in pain.
A negative x-ray does not mean you don't have pain.
A negative x-ray does not take into account your neurological injuries.
It doesn't show trauma to your spine.
Or to your vertebral discs in your back.
Or to the nerves that supply different parts of your body.
An x-ray doesn't evaluate whether there's electrical activity in nerves running through your back and your legs.
An x-ray looks at the bony structures.
It looks to see if the bones are broken.
It's able to contrast light and darkness.
A broken bone is often visible on x-ray because of the contrasting light and dark images and shadows.
But you can't SEE PAIN on an X-Ray.
Every doctor will agree with that statement.
But the jury has to know that.
You assume they know that.
But this defense lawyer is trying to tell them otherwise.
Your treating doctor will come in to testify.
To explain how these things work.
To teach the jury.
To show them that you can't SEE pain on an X-Ray.
Will the jury 'get it'?
Will the jury SEE what the defense is trying to do here?
Will the jury understand that you can't SEE pain on 'normal' X-rays or ANY x-rays for that matter?
You hope, but you just don't know.
The bottom line is that the defense lawyer is insinuating that you are a malingerer.
He's insinuating that because your pain isn't visible on an x-ray, you cannot be believed.
Therefore, the jury should not give you a verdict in your favor.
That's pretty twisted reasoning.
But hey, juries have been convinced of things that have had less logic and reason.
But not your case.
You'll show them.
You'll explain how bad your pain is.
How your activities are limited.
How you can't do the things you used to do.
All because of that careless driver.
The one who went through the red light.
They have to understand that you just can't SEE pain on an X-ray.
