Q: What standard do I have to meet to prove pain and suffering?

A: In court the evidentiary standard would be by a preponderance of the evidence. This means it's more likely so then not that you sustained non-economic damages in your accident. You would be required to present proof from a doctor that, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty or probability, you were injured in the accident. You would then need to illustrate to the jury through your testimony the ways in which your injuries impacted your life.

A: You would have to meet the "more likely than not" standard. The law refers to this standard as a "preponderance of the evidence". Lawyers often describe this standard to jurors as "just over 50%", or by using the illustration of a balance scale with "one more grain of sand on this side of the scale than on the other." While this seems like an easy standard, research shows that jurors actually apply a much higher standard when making their decisions. Jurors tend to prefer "objective" proof of anything they are asked to believe. They prefer not to "take your word for it", even if that word is given under oath. For something as "subjective" as pain and suffering, we will often use medical experts to testify that our client's condition is one that causes pain in most people, so there is no reason to doubt it is causing pain for our client. You may also find this article of interest. https://damoreinjurylaw.com/blog/chronic-pain-shedding-light-on-the-invisible-monster

A: Generally, it is going to be based on the medical records. It's on you to follow up with doctors, tell them what causes you pain, numbness, whatever your symptoms are. You really should get with an attorney--members of the Md. Assn for Justice give free consultations.