What Does this quote mean? Will this Circumstance Qualify as a requirement for hospitalization?

Question

I was reading the definiton of "great bodily injury" and i came up with 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 question is, if a person DOES NOT have an emergency, and STILL goes to the hospital, does it still fall under "some serious enough to require hospitalization?" This is the injury. A red mark about 3 inches wide, caused by a heated tool. The mark was a little blistered, and a litte burnt skin. What do you guys think? By the way, the mark got healed fully a week later, with a small burn mark barely noticeable (even to the victim) And the next day I saw him at school and his arm was wrapped up, other than that he was fine. I also think it was either a 1st/ or MAYBE a 2nd degree burn. Please help

Answer 1

no it doesn't. I've worked for a medical insurance company for over 10 yrs. and that does NOT qualify. "require hospitalization" means something like an amputated limb, crushed bones, 3rd degree burns over a large part of the body ect...

Answer 2

I feel that any type of burn would warrant an urgent care or ER visit.  

Answer 3

Going to hospital is not the same as hospitalization. Anyone can visit a hospital with any injury (or no injury!), being hospitalized means the hospital thought it was serious enough to keep you in, because it was an injury they needed to treat and observe you after to see how you were doing.

If you made the mark and he's suing you, you need a lawyer, not Yahoo Answers....