Copyright held by The John Cooke Fraud Report. Reprint rights are granted with attribution to The John Cooke Fraud Report with a link to this website.
By Impact General, Inc.
The claim arrived on the adjuster’s desk looking like so many other claims. Rear impact, low speed, four occupants and a variety of injuries.
The vehicle was a 1978 Pinto. The $800 damage estimate suggested a straight-on impact from behind of low to medium severity. The accident had happened late at night and there were no witnesses other than the injured occupants. The allegedly at-fault driver had hit-and-run and the four bodily injury claims were being presented against the uninsured motorist section of the driver’s policy.
There was a police report; it had been made over-the-counter the morning following the accident. The four claimants were all represented by the same attorney. Claimants Peter and Alexander were treated at one clinic and claimants Samuel and Nadia were treated at another. Medical billings ranged from $2600 for Nadia to $4200 for Peter.
Gleaned from the various medical records and statements taken was the following information: Samuel was the driver and his injuries were to his left shoulder and right leg. He indicated that his shoulder had hit forcefully against the door frame and his right leg had slammed into the gear shift. Nadia, his wife, had struck her head on the windshield and suffered bruising from the seat belt restraint system. Her chiropractic treatments were for cervical and thoracic strains/sprains. Alexander was sitting in the rear seat, directly behind the driver, and his injuries included lumbar sprain/strain, sciatica and left elbow contusions. Peter, seated in the rear passenger seat, had slammed into the right side window/frame and was being treated for neck, back, right hip, right arm and head injuries.
The demands ranged from $7800 for Nadia to $13,500 for Peter. The stories all matched and the medical records seemed to be complete and in order.
What’s wrong with this picture?
In short, the only way these four occupants could have legitimately sustained the claimed injuries from a straight-on low impact rear collision is as follows:
Samuel, while driving, would have had to turn around in the seat and have his right shoulder aimed at one o’clock and his left shoulder aimed at seven o’clock. He would have had his leg twisted to the right and in position to jam up against the gear shift. If he were in this exact position, his injuries would have coincided with the impact.
Nadia, if unbelted, could have conceivably hit the windshield. If belted, she could have sustained a chest bruise or two—if she bruised very easily—but there’s no way her head could make it to the windshield.
Alexander would have had to have placed his bent left elbow against the front seat headrest, but done it in such a way that his back was straight. Then he also must have had his left leg in a position that would allow a severe sprain/strain to occur, with resulting sciatica.
Peter would have been sideways in his seat, facing the right side of the car and had the right side of his body wedged up against a two-by-four or other solid object.
If the four claimants were Swedish gymnasts, practicing for an act while driving down the street, the accident could have conceivably caused the various claimed injuries.
Or
If there was not one impact, but four separate impacts, the four claimants could have received their alleged injuries. In the case at hand, however, only one impact was evidenced.
Which brings us into the study of biomechanics as it pertains to automobile collisions and bodily injury claims.
INJURY BIOMECHANICS
Depending upon the impact, the direction of the occupant movement will vary and the possible injuries will differ.
In a frontal impact (up and over occupant movement), the occupant will move forward. The head may strike the windshield and possible fracturing of the skull, face or spine may occur. There may be facial lacerations and the chest or abdomen may strike the steering wheel. Injuries to the liver and spleen, fractures of the sternum, ribs and chest or seat belt chest injuries may result.
In a frontal impact (down and under movement) the occupant will also move forward. The knees may strike the dash or fire wall. There may be possible fractures to knee caps, thigh bone, hips and pelvis and the upper parts of the body may strike the steering wheel, dash or windshield. Occupant may sustain possible skull fracture, lacerations to the head and face, spine fractures and injuries to the larynx, thorax and abdomen as well as possible injuries to internal organs and seatbelt caused chest injuries.
A lateral (side) impact will thrust the occupant toward the striking vehicle and chest and pelvic injuries may result. Occupant might suffer skull fracture and lacerations of the head and face if he strikes the side window or door post or possible lateral cervical ligament and tendon injuries.
The results of a rotational impact depend on the direction of the rotation. Such impacts generally produce combinations of injuries. Frequently the occupants strike door and window posts with significant head and face injuries. Spinal and internal organ injuries are also possible in such impacts.
A partial ejection collision produces variable occupant movement. Injuries include blunt trauma and severing injuries due to penetration or entrapment.
A total ejection will also produce variable occupant movement. These accidents result in a 400-percent increase in mortality and a 1400-percent increase in cervical spine injuries.
A rollover will cause the occupants to flail and tumble; the injuries are unpredictable and will depend on the type and use of restraint systems.
Rear end impacts will cause the occupants to move opposite to the vehicle’s direction of travel—or toward the striking force. Depending on the severity of the impact, resulting injuries can include sprain, strain or tearing of anterior ligaments and tendons, possible cervical fractures and possible disk and spinal cord injuries.
INJURY
There are many factors that affect the tolerance of the cervical spine to injury. Physical factors include the initial position of the neck, the degree of constraint imposed by the contact surface, the rate of loading and the ability of the vehicle to dissipate the energy of the impact. The personal factors include the sex of the occupant, the bone mineral content (age) of the vertebrae, the presence of degeneration, the degree of muscular stimulation at the time of impact (which, in turn, relates to whether or not the impact is anticipated), and the geometric population variances (height, neck dimensions, etc.).
In the cases of Samuel, Nadia, Alexander and Peter, each individual claimed to be wearing his/her seatbelt. Since the biomechanics of injury are affected by the wearing of seatbelts, the following questions should have been addressed in the statements if the biomechanics of injury are to be considered in the defense of the claim.
How did the collision occur?
At what speed was the vehicle you were in traveling at the time of the collision?
At what speed was the other vehicle traveling at the time of impact?
Did you see the other car prior to impact? (Note: Someone should have! If not, what were they doing? Where were they looking?)
Where were you seated in the vehicle?
Were you wearing your seat belt at the time of the collision?
Describe the seat belt you were wearing. Was it a lap and shoulder combination or a lap belt only?
How were you wearing your seat belt; loose, tight or snug? (Note:
a correct usage answer is snug and tight.)
Does your seat belt have a slack adjuster? If so, how do you adjust the slack? What was the distance from your chest to the seat belt? (Note: If no, the seat belt will automatically rewind all of the slack in the belt.)
Driver. What was the distance from your chest to the steering wheel. (Note: Know the height/weight of the driver. A 6’2” 170-pound person is in a far different position than a 5’2” 170-pound person.)
Front passenger. What was the distance from your knees to the dashboard? Your head to the windshield?
Did the seatbelt malfunction at any time during the collision?
At the moment of impact, how did your body move within the vehicle?
In what direction were you forced?
Did you strike any interior portion of the car?
Did you see what happened to the other people in the car? How did they move? What did they hit?
Did you apply your brakes prior to the collision?
Did you attempt or complete any collision avoidance maneuver prior to impact with the other vehicle?
After the impact with the other car, what did your car do? Did it skid, move to the left or right, or continue straight?
After the accident, what damage did you see?
Describe the injuries you received as a result of this collision?
How did these injuries occur?
What specifically did you strike to cause the injuries?
The story told by our four claimants, adhered to by each of them, was that they were stopped at a red light when they were suddenly hit from behind by a small red vehicle which then fled the scene.
They could have told a different story: the small red vehicle was, for unknown reasons, pursuing them at high speed and Samuel was frightened and driving erratically to try to get away. Samuel was going 80 mph and ran over a curb (Nadia, at 4’11” and 100-pounds shot up and out of her seatbelt and hit the windshield), and then he took a number of very sharp left and right turns, hitting his brakes hard to keep control of the car. In such a scenario, Alexander, Peter and Samuel all could have conceivably been injured during these abrupt slamming motions to coincide with the descriptions in their medical reports.
OCCUPANT KINEMATICS
Occupant kinematics is a science, one that can be used with great success by a skillful adjuster, investigator or defense attorney. Kinematics is that branch of mechanics which deals with the motion of bodies and with the forces required to produce or maintain the motion.
It has been argued by some that the correct term is kinetics—the study of unbalanced forces and the motion they produce. Whatever we call it, however, it often answers questions.
Who was driving?
Positions prior to collision?
The effect of safety belts?
The forces involved and dissipated in the collision?
The forces involved are of most interest to fraud investigators. Based on the answers given by the claimants, the months of soft tissue chiropractic treatments can be effectively discounted and eventually the damages may be severely mitigated.
Investigators should take the following steps in dealing with suspicious injury claims:
1. Inspect the vehicle interior for signs of contact between bodies and interior.
2. Get a thorough understanding of how the vehicles moved from first contact to maximum engagement to separation and finally to their points of rest. (Note: Skid marks are an excellent source of information in those cases where the scene is investigated very early in the claim.)
3. From this information, chart how the bodies should have moved within the vehicle.
4. Review the injury data and determine how injuries and interior vehicle contact points match.
5. If no significant differences are noted between how claimants should have moved and the resultant injuries, the case may be valid. More often than not, however, discrepancies will be noted and must be addressed.
6. (Optional) Examine whether seat belt usage would have reduced the injury. Is there comparative negligence on the part of the injured occupant?
VEHICLE INSPECTION
Vehicles should be inspected as soon as possible after the collision. This is done for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is to get a good understanding of how the vehicle moved as a result of the collision.
How significant parts of the vehicle have been displaced will indicate the direction of force or thrust that was applied, if any part of the car collapsed and the extent of the collapse.
Too many people have the misconception that the faster vehicle in a two-car collision suffers the most damage. There are others who argue the opposite. Both are wrong. The fact is that in a two-car collision, the stronger vehicle suffers the least damage. With the forces between the impacting vehicles being equal and opposite at all times, the weaker structure of either vehicle is crushed and broken the most. Thus, in an impact between the channel-iron bumper of a big truck and the ornamental grille on a compact car, the truck bumper remains virtually unscathed whereas the car’s grill is torn and crushed.
This is true with the truck stopped and the car moving, with the car stopped and the truck moving or with both moving. The angle of impact makes no difference. It is only the strength of the parts in contact that accounts for damage.
NEWTON’S LAW
Understanding occupant behavior in vehicle collisions requires an understanding of Newton’s First Law of Motion. Simplified, this law states that if a body is at rest, it stays at rest until it is acted upon by some outside force. If a body is in motion, it continues moving in the same direction with the same speed until it is acted upon by some outside force.
It can be shown that a traffic collision is a composite of four events occurring in rapid succession. When the bumper of a moving vehicle contacts an object, causing it to stop moving, the rest of the vehicle continues to move in the same direction with the same velocity until the resistance of the vehicle’s body and components to crush, offsets the kinetic energy of the vehicle. At that point, the occupants continue to move again in the same direction and with the same velocity until the movement is terminated by contact with the interior of the vehicle (steering wheel, dashboard, windshield, etc.) or the restraining systems (seal belts and air bags).
As soon as the body stops moving, the internal organs continue their journey until they strike the wall of the body cavity that contains them.
The last two collisions produce injuries. The first two property damage.
If a vehicle runs head-on into something, the vehicle is slowed or decelerated. Alternatively, if the vehicle is hit by another car, the vehicle is accelerated. Since thrust is determined by the mass of the objects involved, comparing the sizes and weights of the two automobiles becomes important. A Cadillac Fleetwood hitting a Volkswagen Bug in the rear will produce a far different level of injury expectation (to occupants of the VW) than the injuries realistically expected to occupants of the Cadillac hit by the VW.
The vehicle may also rotate around its center of mass. However, if the occupants are not secured to the vehicle by safety belts, they are free to continue moving at the time of the collision until they strike the interior of the vehicle (Newton’s outside force).
Thus, in a rear collision, a vehicle could be standing still or moving when hit in the rear, with the same effects on the vehicle’s occupants. The bodies want to keep moving at the same velocity (relative to the earth) as they were before the collision. However, the vehicle is being accelerated, forward, causing the occupants to move rearward.
The following parts of the vehicle interior may yield valuable information relative to occupant motion inside the vehicle. Steering wheel, seat backs, interior door panels, windshield and other glass, rearview mirror, dashboard and knee bolster, gear shift lever and headliner and pillars.
Safety belts are relatively non-functional in rear collisions except to keep the occupants from injury during subsequent impacts or ejection. However, belts have been found to be advantageous in rear-impact cases of higher severity by creating a more positive link between the occupant and the vehicle which can lessen head impacts with relatively rigid surfaces such as the roof or rear window. Typical types of damage seen in a more serious rear collision are broken or bent seat backs, steering wheel pulled rearward and broken rear window glass.
There are several items of importance in reconstructing occupant kinematics and interaction with the vehicle that relate specifically to the occupant rather than information gained solely from the vehicle inspection.
The size, shape and height of an occupant is a factor affecting kinematics. The age, sex and medical history can be a factor affecting injury severity. Consider the injury believability between a 72-year-old Alexander and a 22-year-old Alexander. Consider, too, the proclivity of leg injury (jamming against the gear shift) of Samuel if he’s 6’2” and wears trousers with an inseam of 36”—or a far shorter Samuel who may have a 28” inseam measurement.
Injury biomechanics is a valuable tool to the knowledgeable investigator. It is also a fascinating science.
This article is based on information contained in the workbook produced by the National Institute of Forensic Studies which is a division of Impact General, Inc. The book is used in conjuction with their course on the same subject matter. The following IG experts have contributed to the workbook: Bill Edmonds, Fred Kakij, Gary Meller, Ken Rehbein and George Ripsom.
© Copyright 1995 Alikim Media