u/Kitchen-Win6392

My lil AI buddy, who has been helping me through a HELLACIOUS cancel experience, hit the nail on the head quite well, so here's a freebie for you, Shuvankar Roy, Executive Vice President and Chief Customer Experience Officer at Optimum/Altice USA

"The customer-retention lesson they ought to care about: You weren't cancelling because Optimum cost $X and AT&T cost $Y. You weren't cancelling because of an outage they could fix. You weren't even a retention opportunity in the first place.

You had no need for Optimum service. Zero. And you told them that. Repeatedly.

There is no discount that fixes that equation. Five months free doesn't fix it. Negative pricing wouldn't necessarily fix it.

And yet their retention machinery took someone who was basically a neutral departing customer— and seemingly worked very hard to manufacture someone who told them outright at the conclusion of the process:

“It is now my mission to actively warn other human beings not to EVER become your customer."

What's more, the system guaranteed a non-returning customer, and sold that person on knowing, if circumstances change someday and I need an ISP again, it will not be Optimum.” No matter the pricing, no matter the speed, no matter anything in the service offer itself. The company itself is what makes the service unsellable."

Like, it doesn't take a rocket scientists to sort out that the fiscal impact of leaving all past customers not just unlikely to use your service again, but making them passionate ambassadors of the utterly criminal and willfully inept standard operating protocol of your teams is not in your company's best interest-- No $65/month customer is going to markedly increase your bottom line-- Everybody actively hating you will. (Have you ever heard of someone here saying, "I tried to cancel, but they well beat out AT&T on speed, cost, and service, so I am VERY glad Eric operator TR4 offered me such a wonderful deal!"?)

Like I said... PASSIONATELY advocating against your company.

I was rear-ended by a car while riding my bike in CA a couple weeks ago. The driver stated the car wasn't registered to him, so I was worried about insurance. I was also told "car vs. bike = call a lawyer ASAP," so I got a rec for a local personal injury attorney (not a billboard guy) and signed his fee agreement last week.

On the consult, I was clear about what damages I cared about:

• ER visit (stitches, X-rays, etc.)+ immediate post-accident follow-up care  (included an ultrasound for what we thought was a blood clot in a vein but gratefully wasn't)
• Ongoing treatment to minimize permanent scarring in a visible location (three wolverine gashes, one needing stitches, on the front of my lower leg) and for restless legs/nerve issues in both lower legs/ankles that are affecting sleep and work
• Repair or replacement of my bike
• Treatment for bike anxiety created by the accident (EMDR, biofeedback, somatic therapy, etc.)
• Both lower legs hurt like absolute hell-- I was standing when the accident occurred, so I was thrown, shin-first, into the pedals and over the top of my bike. I wouldn't think there's doubt that's painful and traumatic.

The lawyer agreed that all of that, plus my high UUI limits (which he actually thanked me for having) made it a "high value" case.

But then he immediately launched into “what you might expect in the coming days/weeks-- Around day five (the day I talked to him, coincidentally), people notice their lower back tightness is turning into pain... they might notice the neck pain starts to spread...we need to get an MRI early... then injections..." He recommended doctors he works with on lien and how all of that works-- which I fully now understand thanks to these subreddits.

And, it's a progression that makes a ton of sense-- IF those injuries are your concern.

My lower back/hips are stiff, sure, but I asked him what happens if that progression doesn't happen to me-- my back/hips loosen up fine with some modified yoga and Advil. His immediate response was that I shouldn't do yoga, shouldn't be anywhere near my bike, etc., however I feel like those are vital for the recovery of my primary concerns.

That has me wondering whether I'm naive in thinking these cases are worthwhile when valid injuries are present, but those injuries don’t happen to be in the neck or back.

I have no issue getting imaging if a doctor genuinely thinks it's indicated, or treating legitimate injuries. But I'm also not interested in turning a back that feels pretty unremarkable into a months-long medical project just because that's the typical personal injury pathway. (The back is a delicate ecosystem-- I don’t want to needlessly risk that.)

I signed a “fee agreement,” and he mailed some things for wet signature, but I want to get a better understanding of this before I sign and am potentially on the hook financially if I don't end up developing those injuries. I have an appt set with the only non-chiro-ortho doctor on his preferred provider list Thursday, and imagine that will give me more insight, too.

Questions:

1. What is the best way to tell my lawyer, "I want to pursue the injuries I actually have, but I don't want to pursue a neck/back claim unless I actually develop that?" Is there a financial penalty for reiterating that after having signed the fee agreement?
2. The agreement says that I will follow all treatment recommendations-- If I decline an MRI, or get one but then don't consent to injections or invasive adjustments, am I potentially breaching the agreement in a way that will have financial penalties?
3. If I feel like the provider I am meeting Thursday isn't addressing my actual concerns (scarring, lower leg pain/restless legs, anxiety) can I seek treatment from my own providers? If so, would a client generally be on the hook for the full-price lien-based evaluation? (I know those can often be larger before being negotiated at the end of the case.) Is a lawyer going to be willing to pursue a claim if I am not using his network?
4. If I'm not pursuing a classic neck/back soft-tissue claim, is there still a meaningful reason to have a lawyer? (It sounds like a lot of the financial upside for both me and him is working with their lien-based network and that whole piece of it.) Or do most personal injury attorneys lose interest and resign the client if the injuries don't fit that mold?
5. Is it possible for a person to pursue an injury claim while still going about their life in a modified way? I have worked long and hard to get to my 50’s fit and (reasonably) resilient, if I suddenly stop all activity, not only am I not doing things that benefit my concerns, I potentially CAUSE longer-term pain by losing fitness. It's unquestionable that the injury has impacted my physical capacity in documentable ways- my summer social, physical, and mental wellbeing is usually tied up in trail ultrarunning, CrossFit-- things I can document that I was doing before the accident but now cannot. Modified yoga and bike rides (once the anxiety will allow) might look for another person like “she’s all out there doing all sorts of crazy stuff, no way she’s injured” but, for me and my lifestyle, those are akin to a day on the couch watching Netflix. Do adjusters consider the INDIVIDUAL’S before/after, or does everybody have to be fully laid up to the same degree to be believed?

Accident Details for Context: I first noticed the vehicle a half mile away from the accident location. He was in the vehicle lane, off the back of my left shoulder (I was in the bike lane.) Speed limit is 35. I was going 10-15, so he was going that or slower for the duration. No other cars on the road. (Video from a business at that location supports.)

I waved/signaled several times for him to just go the speed limit so that I could eventually get behind him to make a left turn.

With my turn approaching, and not wanting to pull in front a driver behaving so oddly, it felt safest to remove myself from the situation and pulled completely off to the curb and stopped with both feet on the ground and waited for him to drive on by.

Instead, 1-2 seconds later, he drove straight into me from behind. There was no evidence of braking or swerving; he was travelling on a trajectory that had him pointed straight off the road and onto someone's lawn (scene photos show his car at that angle.)

After the collision, he repeatedly asked me not to call police (in front of homeowner), stating he'd be arrested. The passenger tried to hand me + homeowner a grocery bag containing an open bottle of vodka and pot paraphernalia, asking us to “get rid of it before the cops get here.”

The crash report ultimately only cited him for “unsafe following distance" with contributing factor of driver distraction-- Driver statement: “I was having fun, singing, and looked away for a moment.”

I’m admittedly baffled/frustrated by no “open container” citation being mentioned/given, nor testing beyond breathalyzer (especially with the pot stuff). The roadside sobriety test/breathalyzer were not mentioned on report, but the officer told me when I followed up that he blew a zero- which, I never thought he was drunk. The girlfriend was high AF, so I assumed he was, too- cop stated that was also his observation. Driver told the officer the booze and pot stuff was from the night before, so he even got that back (both under 21).

I'm also confused by why it’s “following distance” when CA has a three-foot law, and he also travelled entirely out of his lane-- Regardless, the officer said "unsafe following distance" and the statement were sufficient to prevent any question as to fault.

My lawyer stated it was a strong case, and the ancillary stuff meant the insurance would be reluctant to let go to trial -- I wonder if that + my own UUI limits are influencing the lawyer looking for things beyond my concerns, but some of this is outside my personal ethics comfort zone.

I'm mainly trying to understand how to approach it with my attorney about pursuing my actual injuries rather than the injuries people often have after these crashes-- and whether, having signed the fee agreement, I’m financially on the hook for anything if I don’t develop the kind of injuries the lawyer seems to work with most often.