How CostSignals Calculates Legal Costs

Key Assumptions

• The claimant is not primarily at fault under the applicable comparative negligence standard
• Medical treatment was sought promptly and documented consistently by licensed providers
• Insurance policy limits are sufficient to cover the estimated range; actual recovery may be capped by available coverage
• The multiplier method is a widely-used insurance industry heuristic, not a statutory formula
• Medical bills used as the base reflect reasonable, necessary treatment as documented by healthcare providers
• Some insurers use a per-diem method instead of or alongside the multiplier approach; this tool focuses on the multiplier model

Sample Calculation Approach

Estimates a potential settlement range by summing documented economic damages (medical expenses, lost wages, property damage) and applying a severity-adjusted multiplier for non-economic damages such as pain and suffering. The multiplier is selected based on injury severity, treatment duration, and recovery prognosis.

Key Assumptions

• Multipliers range from 1.5x (minor bulge, conservative treatment) to 5x (surgical fusion, permanent limitations)
• Future medical costs are projected based on treatment protocols for disc injuries
• Lost wage calculations assume average recovery timelines by treatment type
• Punitive damages are available in most states for DUI accidents (excluded in a few states)
• BAC level above 0.15 significantly increases punitive damage awards
• Criminal conviction creates strong presumption of negligence in the civil case

Sample Calculation Approach

Estimates herniated disc settlement value using a combination of medical expense totals, treatment type (conservative vs surgical), disc location (cervical vs lumbar), pain duration, impact on daily activities, and jurisdiction-specific multipliers for non-economic damages.

Key Assumptions

• The treating physician has documented the need for ongoing or future medical treatment
• Medical cost inflation is factored at a rate consistent with historical healthcare CPI trends
• Present-value discounting uses a conservative rate reflecting current economic conditions
• Fault percentages are based on jury findings or insurance adjuster assessments; actual allocation is case-specific
• This model uses the pure comparative rule — the plaintiff recovers even at 99% fault
• Pain and suffering multipliers range from 1.5x to 5x economic damages based on injury severity

Sample Calculation Approach

Projects future medical expenses by estimating the annual cost of ongoing treatment and multiplying by the expected duration of care, then reducing the total to present value. Treatment categories include follow-up surgeries, physical therapy, prescription medications, and adaptive equipment.

Key Assumptions

• Anesthesia errors occur in approximately 1 in 10,000-20,000 procedures, with mortality in 1 in 100,000-200,000
• Brain injury from anesthesia error (hypoxic injury) carries the highest settlement values ($1M-$10M+)
• Expert anesthesiologist testimony ($10,000-$30,000) is required to establish standard-of-care breach
• The surgical error deviated from the accepted standard of care as established by expert medical testimony
• Causation between the error and the patient's injury can be established by medical experts
• State-specific medical malpractice procedural requirements (certificate of merit, pre-suit notice, screening panels) are satisfied

Sample Calculation Approach

Estimates anesthesia error claim value using error type (dosage, monitoring failure, intubation injury, allergic reaction, awareness during surgery), resulting injury severity, medical costs for corrective treatment, lost income, pain and suffering multiplier, and applicable malpractice damage caps.

Key Assumptions

• The terminated employee has documented evidence of an illegal motive (retaliation, discrimination, or breach of contract)
• Mitigation of damages is required — the claimant must make reasonable efforts to find comparable employment
• Statutory caps under Title VII apply to federal discrimination claims; state law claims may provide additional or uncapped remedies
• The claimant belongs to a protected class and experienced adverse employment action
• Causation between protected status and adverse action can be established through direct or circumstantial evidence
• Employer defenses (legitimate business reason, same-decision defense) are considered in valuation

Sample Calculation Approach

Estimates wrongful termination claim value by analyzing back pay (lost wages from termination to resolution), front pay (future earnings loss if reinstatement is impractical), lost benefits value (health insurance, retirement contributions, stock options), emotional distress damages, and potential punitive damages based on employer conduct severity. Title VII caps total compensatory + punitive damages based on employer size ($50K-$300K), while state law claims may have higher or no caps.

Key Assumptions

• Impairment rating is assigned by a licensed physician after the injured worker reaches maximum medical improvement (MMI)
• Permanent partial disability benefits are calculated as a percentage of the state average weekly wage multiplied by the impairment rating
• Lump-sum settlement value is typically 60-80% of the projected total benefits to account for time value and litigation risk

Sample Calculation Approach

Estimates workers compensation impairment settlement value using whole-person impairment rating (0-100%), impairment schedule (AMA Guides 5th/6th edition or state-specific), average weekly wage, maximum medical improvement status, and state-specific benefit multipliers.

Key Assumptions

• GLP-1 medications under litigation include semaglutide (Ozempic, Wegovy), tirzepatide (Mounjaro), dulaglutide (Trulicity), liraglutide (Victoza, Saxenda)
• Stronger cases involve gastroparesis diagnosis confirmed by gastric emptying study (gold standard) rather than clinical symptoms alone
• Symptom onset during or within 6 months of GLP-1 use strengthens causal connection; pre-existing gastroparesis weakens claims

Sample Calculation Approach

Screens potential GLP-1 gastroparesis claims by evaluating medication history (specific drug, dosage, duration of use), symptom onset timing relative to drug initiation, diagnosis confirmation (gastric emptying study, clinical evaluation), severity of complications, and current treatment costs. Provides a preliminary eligibility assessment based on published litigation criteria.

Key Assumptions

• The insurer had an obligation to pay or investigate the claim in good faith under the insurance contract and state regulations
• The insured can demonstrate the insurer acted unreasonably in denying, delaying, or underpaying the claim
• State-specific bad faith statutes and remedies apply (first-party vs. third-party bad faith)

Sample Calculation Approach

Estimates bad faith insurance claim value by calculating the underlying claim value that was wrongfully denied or underpaid, consequential damages caused by the denial (additional debt, lost property, credit damage, medical complications from delayed treatment), emotional distress damages, and potential punitive damages based on the insurer's conduct. Punitive damages in egregious cases can be 2-10x compensatory damages depending on state law and insurer conduct.

Key Assumptions

• The product was used in a reasonably foreseeable manner (including foreseeable misuse)
• A causal link between the product defect and the injury can be established through expert testimony
• Strict liability, negligence, and breach of warranty theories are all potentially available depending on jurisdiction

Sample Calculation Approach

Estimates defective product claim value by analyzing the defect type (design defect, manufacturing defect, or failure to warn), injury severity, medical costs, lost income, pain and suffering, and any applicable product recall history. Product liability claims under strict liability do not require proving negligence — only that the product was defective and caused injury. Punitive damages may apply when the manufacturer knew of the defect.

Key Assumptions

• The defect is attributable to construction workmanship, design, materials, or code compliance rather than normal wear and age
• Notice requirements and right-to-repair statutes applicable in the jurisdiction have been satisfied
• Statute of repose has not expired (varies by state, typically 6-12 years from substantial completion)

Sample Calculation Approach

Estimates construction defect claim value by evaluating the defect category (structural, water intrusion, electrical/plumbing, material, or code violation), repair or remediation costs, diminished property value, loss of use during repairs, temporary housing costs, and consequential damages (mold growth, personal property damage). Construction defect claims may be brought against builders, developers, subcontractors, architects, engineers, and material suppliers.