Why one fracture settles for 10x another
Fracture claims have a built-in advantage over soft-tissue claims: the injury photographs. An X-ray showing a break ends the did-it-happen argument on day one. What remains is entirely a severity argument, and severity in fracture claims is concrete: surgical versus non-surgical, joint-involved versus shaft, hardware versus no hardware, complications versus clean healing.
That is why the same phrase — “I broke my arm” — can describe a claim that resolves in the low five figures or one that reaches multiples of that. The three questions that separate them: Which bone (a femur is not a finger)? Did it need surgery (ORIF roughly doubles the medical story)? And is anything permanent — retained hardware, lost range of motion, or a joint surface that will develop post-traumatic arthritis years from now?