Legal Cost Methodology & Evidence Limits

Declared Assumptions

• The trucking company carried the federally mandated minimum liability insurance or higher
• Federal Hours of Service and inspection regulations were applicable at the time of the accident
• Severity of injuries tends to be higher in truck crashes due to the mass differential between commercial trucks and passenger vehicles
• The property owner or occupier owed a legal duty of care to the injured person (invitee, licensee, or trespasser status may affect this)
• The hazardous condition existed long enough for the owner to have discovered and remedied it through reasonable diligence
• Comparative fault principles apply; the claimant's own actions (e.g., ignoring warning signs) may reduce recovery

Editorial Formula Summary

Calculates a settlement range by combining economic damages with a severity multiplier adjusted upward for the unique factors in commercial trucking cases, including higher policy limits, federal regulatory violations, and the typically greater force of impact in truck collisions.

Declared Assumptions

• The employee filed a timely charge with the EEOC or state equivalent within the required deadline (180 or 300 days)
• Federal damage caps apply: $50K (15-100 employees) to $300K (500+ employees) for compensatory and punitive damages combined under Title VII
• State law claims may not have damage caps and can significantly increase recovery
• The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) requires time-and-a-half for hours over 40 per week for non-exempt employees
• Liquidated damages under FLSA equal 100% of unpaid wages (effectively doubling the recovery) unless the employer proves good faith
• State wage laws may provide additional penalties, longer statutes of limitation, or broader coverage

Editorial Formula Summary

Estimates potential settlement ranges for employment discrimination claims by summing economic damages (back pay, front pay, lost benefits) and non-economic damages (emotional distress, humiliation, reputational harm). Federal anti-discrimination statutes (Title VII, ADA, ADEA) impose damage caps based on employer size.

Declared Assumptions

• Wage documentation (pay stubs, tax returns, employer verification) is available to substantiate claimed earnings
• Self-employed claimants can demonstrate lost income through business records and tax filings
• Future lost earning capacity projections assume reasonable mitigation (i.e., the claimant returns to work when medically cleared)
• 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

Editorial Formula Summary

Calculates economic damages for lost income by multiplying the claimant's daily wage rate by the number of workdays missed due to injury. Future lost earning capacity is projected using age, occupation, and remaining work-life expectancy data, then reduced to present value.

Declared Assumptions

• A qualified medical expert is available to testify that the healthcare provider deviated from the standard of care
• The injury is directly attributable to the deviation rather than to the underlying medical condition
• State damages caps, if applicable, may limit non-economic or total recovery regardless of the estimated range
• Corrective treatment costs include all procedures needed to restore the patient to pre-malpractice condition
• Nerve damage (inferior alveolar or lingual nerve) significantly increases settlement value due to permanent numbness or pain
• Expert testimony from a board-certified dentist is typically required to establish the standard of care

Editorial Formula Summary

Produces an educational settlement range by combining the cost of corrective medical treatment, lost wages, and non-economic damages. The estimate accounts for the complexity of proving a deviation from the accepted standard of care and any state-imposed damages caps.

Declared 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

Editorial Formula Summary

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.

Declared Assumptions

• The injury arose out of and in the course of employment, meeting the statutory requirements for compensability
• The employer carried active workers' compensation insurance at the time of the injury
• Benefit rates are based on the state where the injury occurred; multi-state employment situations may have different rules
• 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

Editorial Formula Summary

Estimates weekly wage replacement benefits and potential permanent impairment awards by applying the state-specific compensation rate to the claimant's average weekly wage. Temporary total disability benefits are typically two-thirds of the pre-injury average weekly wage, subject to statutory minimums and maximums.

Declared Assumptions

• The claimant sought medical attention within 72 hours of the accident, establishing a clear causal link
• Treatment was consistent and documented — gaps in treatment reduce settlement value significantly
• No pre-existing cervical spine condition complicates causation analysis
• Every amount, percentage, and cap is entered by the user and starts at zero
• No jurisdiction, fault, injury, case-strength, multiplier, policy-limit, or legal-rule conclusion is supplied
• The arithmetic result is not a claim value, settlement prediction, judgment, entitlement, or advice

Editorial Formula Summary

Estimates whiplash injury settlement ranges by summing documented medical expenses (ER visit, imaging, chiropractic care, physical therapy) and lost wages, then applying a severity multiplier of 1.5–5× based on treatment duration, symptom persistence, and whether the injury caused chronic pain or required injections.

Declared 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
• Studies show a 20-30% increased risk of ASD/ADHD with sustained prenatal acetaminophen use, but individual causation must be proven
• Retailer and manufacturer defendants face different liability theories (failure to warn vs. product liability)
• MDL consolidation means bellwether trial outcomes will influence global settlement values

Editorial Formula Summary

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.

Declared Assumptions

• Strict product liability applies in most states — the manufacturer is liable for defective products regardless of negligence
• Takata airbag cases have an established claims process through the bankruptcy trust; non-Takata cases proceed as individual product liability claims
• Airbag deployment failures in survivable crashes create strong liability evidence because the airbag is expected to function in precisely those conditions
• 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

Editorial Formula Summary

Estimates potential recovery for airbag defect claims based on injury severity, defect type (failure to deploy, late deployment, excessive force, Takata recall), medical costs, and applicable strict product liability theories. The screener applies historical settlement data from airbag-related product liability cases.

Declared Assumptions

• Strict liability applies: the plaintiff must prove the product was defective (design, manufacturing, or warning defect) and caused the injury
• Multiple parties may be liable in the distribution chain: manufacturer, distributor, retailer
• Product recalls and prior complaints strengthen the case significantly

Editorial Formula Summary

Estimates settlement ranges for defective product injury claims under strict liability, negligence, or breach of warranty theories. Sums medical costs, lost wages, and property damage, then applies severity multipliers. Product liability claims do not require proving the manufacturer was negligent — only that the product was defective and caused injury.

Declared Assumptions

• Most state lemon laws require 3-4 repair attempts for the same defect OR 30+ cumulative days out of service within the warranty period
• Usage offsets (mileage deductions from refund) are calculated as: purchase price × (miles at first repair / 120,000)
• Manufacturer attorney fee liability (prevailing consumer recovers fees) significantly affects settlement dynamics

Editorial Formula Summary

Estimates potential recovery under state lemon law statutes by evaluating the vehicle purchase price, number and nature of repair attempts, days out of service, and whether the manufacturer met its obligation to repair, replace, or refund. Models outcomes including vehicle replacement, full refund minus usage offset, and manufacturer buyback.

Declared Assumptions

• SSDI benefits are based on your earnings record — higher lifetime earnings result in higher benefits (max approximately $3,822/month in 2026)
• There is a mandatory 5-month waiting period from disability onset to benefit eligibility
• Back-pay can cover up to 12 months before the application date (total potential back-pay of 17+ months)

Editorial Formula Summary

Estimates monthly Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) benefits based on your Average Indexed Monthly Earnings (AIME), applying the Social Security bend-point formula to compute the Primary Insurance Amount (PIA). Models the 5-month waiting period and potential back-pay calculation.

Declared 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)

Editorial Formula Summary

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.

Declared 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)

Editorial Formula Summary

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.