A lawsuit that seeks compensation for loss of consortium enjoys the support of the legal system for 2 reasons. First, it provides a spouse and family with a way to recover from the fiscal loss suffered, following the death or long-term impairment of a severely injured parent/spouse. Second, it encourages workers’ participation in the laboring system.
Yet the same legal system provides any worker’s family with an alternative to suing for loss of consortium. That family can seek compensation from the organization that had employed the injured worker. If that organization refuses to provide such compensation, then the family has grounds for a lawsuit.
Basic features of family’s situation, upon seeking compensation for loss of consortium:
The family’s provider can no longer earn a living. Either that provider has died, after being fatally wounded in an accident, or the provider’s ability to function normally has ceased, as the result of a long-lasting or permanent injury.
The provider’s relationship with each family member has changed to an irrevocable degree. A judge normally decides on the amount of money that should be awarded to the plaintiffs.
Before the judge reaches a decision, an expert on economic issues might be called to testify in court. The judge then has the ability to take that testimony into consideration, before announcing how much money the plaintiff should receive, as compensation for loss of consortium.
The expert’s testimony would focus on the money earned by the now injured or deceased provider, before the time of the accident. That testimony would ignore other issues that might be introduced by an injury lawyer for the defendant, the organization that had employed the injured or deceased worker.
Issues that might get introduced by the injury lawyer for the defendant
When family members seek fair compensation for their losses, their lawyer highlights the strength of their relationship with the now deceased or injured provider. Consequently, the lawyer for the defendant tries to counter the claims made by the legal counsel for the plaintiff.
Such counterarguments represent an attempt to poke holes in the statements made by the plaintiff’s lawyer. That attempt might involve the exposure of times when any one of the family members had argued with or fought with the person that had been the source of the family’s fiscal support.
For a spouse or children that are grieving the impairment of loss of a loved one, the exposure of such times can become a wrenching experience. Consequently, good injury lawyers in Trenton make a point of warning any client/family that plans to file a lawsuit against the organization that had hired, previously, a now deceased or impaired loved one. After all, even the best lawyers have no control over the judge’s final decision.