I dunno. IMHO, this doesn't add up.
An officer stopped and said I was reported for blocking traffic. I mentioned I would stay to the side and continued on my way. The officer pursued, stopped his vehicle, and knocked me off my bike.
But there was more to it that that, right? By your own admission:
He pulled up along my side and said "someone called in and said you were riding in traffic" (there was a single car approx. 20 minutes earlier, so I also doubted the claim). He asked why I was out here, I said I was homeless looking for somewhere warm to stay. I mentioned looking for the post office, that someone said it was open. He said it wasn't. At that point, I said I would try riding further to the side of the road, and started riding again as he started asking for I.D. I went around the corner onto the next road w/o hearing him say anything further, and road about 100 feet onto that road.
So he stopped you because he received a complaint, articulated the reason he was pulling you over, and was in the middle of asking you for your ID when you bolted.
He pulled up along side of me again, I looked at him right as he said "hey! stop the bike"
So you should have stopped, but apparently you still tried to get away because you also wrote:
It happened so fast I hardly had chance to react. Snow and ice prevented me from accelerating, et cetera.
Trying to accelerate when the officer told you to stop the bike seems like attempted evasion to me.
Now let's talk about these alleged injuries. Who was this local MD? So he was willing to do an X-ray but not offer any treatment? Why didn't you go to the local ER? They would have diagnosed the injury and treated you regardless if you were indigent. You claim these are "lifelong" injuries. What medical expert told you that?
Yet I am very certain there is a complete break in the other elbow (the tell-tail gap and failure of the arm when lifting even it's own weight 90* over my head makes this obvious).
How are you qualified to make this diagnosis? BTW, you are basing your claim of injuries on the doctor's examination/x-ray and diagnosis of fracture in one arm, yet you yourself are claiming that his diagnosis of the other arm is incorrect. You are contradicting your own medical expert. If you don't believe him, why should anyone else?
Bottom line is, your version of facts changes when you retell the story, and you yourself question the validity of the doctor's diagnosis. I can't imagine why lawyers are not falling all over themselves to take this case.
I am impressed with your compassion and responses! Enough said.