Friday, September 21, 2007

i'm not a litigious person...

something tells me that if i fight the law, the law is totally going to win. so i called the wsib yesterday, to see if they would cover my time away from work or the reconstructive therapy. my adjudicator (who is very nice) didn't seem to think that they would, since i have "functional" ability back on my foot and it's just my foot, and blah blah blah. so i called a personal injury lawyer my mom refers cases to sometimes, who was also very nice, but seemed to indicate that it might not be worth my while. it's all very complicated. you have to get a letter from a doctor (that costs like, $1000-$1500) saying that i'm in great pain and suffering and it's causing me untold and more importantly, incalculable amounts of strife and trauma and impeding my ability to function like a normal human being. call me the world's greatest survivor, or the toughest gal on earth, but that's kinda not the case (p.s. who are these scheisty doctors anyhoo? all i can picture is dr. nick riviera). then the lawyer said the same thing, that since it's my foot, and it can be covered up, it's probably not worth my time, energy, and money. and if i take action against my employer, i'll probably be held accountable for half of the accident, which cuts into my potential earnings, plus lawyer fees, etc. at which point i interject and go, "look. i'm not a litigious person, i just want to have the reconstruction covered" and lawyer dude's all like, "you may not be a litigious person, but you have to understand how the litigious system works". basically, it seems the only way i'll get any money to cover the costs is if i claim "pain and suffering" which is the x factor in litigation. otherwise, it's a series of charts and checkmarks used by actuarial scientists to figure out how much having a non-disfigured foot is worth me. the other option is that i might be able to take action against the wsib for NOT covering it.

i think people have a very skewed sense of our legal system. the amount of times people have looked at me sympathetically and said, "you should sue!" with a maniacal gleam in their eyes (no doubt gleaned from countless stories of american justice packed into our heads of windfalls from finding a severed digit in your baconator burger at wendy's), i know they're thinking enviously of the piles and piles of money and how my ugly foot is my ticket to a work-free life. this is not the case. the law is a lot more dry and didactic and boring than you would think. it's very procedural. foots are worth x amount of a facial scar. size equals x amount of renumeration. boring.

i also think that when i tell people i have a "scar" on my foot, they're not exactly picturing what this mother looks like. the reconstruction isn't merely cosmetic, i have like a 1" growth on my foot that kinda impedes putting on shoes and stuff.

ah well, the lawyer dude is going to call me back and give me a heads up.

in other news, i'm exhausted right now but this weekend is supposed to be fun! tonight i'm staying in, sleeping, resting, and trying to work on a paper due in a couple of weeks. tomorrow morning i'm doing the same thing, and then i'm packing up and heading to hamilton to visit with dr. rei's family for the first time! we're going to the ancaster fair. apparently there's tractor pulls and other such things that i adore. then sunday we return home, do a little more work, then it's dodgeball, wings at duff's and dj premier (of gangstarr) at revival! what a night!!!

tonight for dinnie is leftovers.


No comments: