The reason is that the attorney's presentation to the insurance company and the court will be based on the assumption that the injuries are only from the dog attack. If it turns out that this assumption is incorrect, then the case will not be worth what the attorney was asking for.
Whenever Ken Phillips learns of a later accident, he discusses it with the client's doctors, for the purpose of establishing the differences (if any) between the injuries from the attack and those from the accident. Many times, there are differences that can be documented, strengthening the client's case. However, Mr. Phillips will never do this if the client does not tell him about the accident!
There is another reason to be frank about later accidents. During a lawsuit, the client will be asked about such accidents. If he or she denies that the accident happened, the effect on the dog bite case will be disastrous, because the client will look like a liar.
The foregoing reasons also apply to pre-existing injuries. Mr. Phillips thoroughly discusses the two injuries with the client's doctors, and attempts to differentiate between them. Sometimes the doctors will confirm that the dog attack made a pre-existing condition worse.
Therefore, clients must always be frank and open about injuries they sustained before and after the dog attack.
www.dogbitelaw.com and each of its sections and products, including Dog Bite Law, The Dog Bite Law Adviser, Dog Bite Litigation Forms, What To Do If Your Dog Is Injured Or Killed, Avoiding Liability When You Train, Shelter or Adopt-Out, Anatomy of a Dog Bite Case, and the foregoing text, are (c) 1999-2008 Kenneth M. Phillips. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or part prohibited except where advance permission is granted in writing. Please read the disclaimer and our rules for linking and quoting. Reporters seeking interviews are welcome to click here. |