What Does this quote stingy? Will this Circumstance Qualify as a requirement for hospitalization?
I was reading the definiton of "great bodily injury" and i came up beside this "The cases which we have upheld a finding of "great bodily injury" involved injuries serious enough to require hospitalization and/or serious rehabilative treatment." My quiz is, if a person DOES NOT have an emergency, and STILL go to the hospital, does it still fall under "some serious adequate to require hospitalization?" This is the injury. A red mark about 3 inches all-embracing, caused by a heated tool. The mark be a little blistered, and a litte burnt skin. What do you guys have an idea that? By the way, the mark get healed fully a week later, next to a small burn mark barely visible (even to the victim) And the next day I saw him at university and his arm was wrapped up, other than that he be fine. I also think it was any a 1st/ or MAYBE a 2nd degree burn. Please help
Answer: I have a feeling that any type of burn would warrant an urgent care or ER visit. .
Going to hospital is not equal as hospitalization. Anyone can visit a hospital with any injury (or no injury!), individual hospitalized means the hospital thought it was serious plenty to keep you in, because it be an injury they needed to treat and observe you after to see how you were doing.
If you made the easy target and he's suing you, you need a lawyer, not General-Health-Care.com..
no it doesn't. I've worked for a medical insurance company for over 10 yrs. and that does NOT qualify. "require hospitalization" routine something like an amputated limb, crushed bones, 3rd amount burns over a large part of the body ect...