It would largely depend on the extent of the injury, the response of the enslaved, and the inclination of the enslaver. This question relates to how enslavers dealt with enslaved women and men that had become too old or infirm to work efficiently. Provided the disability allowed for *some* form of labor, the enslaver might choose try to retain their human capital. In the event the disabled individual was unable to work at all or could only work at an inefficient rate, the enslaver might still keep them and allow them to live out their days in order to try to cast themselves as paternalists. Advocates for southern slavery, particularly in the antebellum period, actually boasted that they did not simply dispense with their slaves once they could no longer work in the way that northerners did with their wage laborers. Of course, they did so specifically to undercut abolitionist and anti-slavery arguments, and in reality, many enslavers sought to sell slaves no longer able to labor.

Enslavers and slave traders regularly sought to mask any infirmities or disabilities of an enslaved person at market. An sick slave might be given food or clothing that might mask their illness, and traders regularly lied about an enslaved person's ability and age. This would have extended to any disabilities as well, and enslavers simply would have tried to hide an enslaved person's disability to complete the sale.

The agency of the enslaved individual being sold also came into play, as slaves regularly manipulated the market in their favor when they could do so. Slaves often undercut their enslavers that put them up for sale, announcing their true age or any injuries they might have in order to remain on their enslaver's plantation (due to familial ties, communal ties, or a host of other reasons). On the other hand, they might seek to hide their disability, age, or sickness and cooperate in order to escape their current situation or to simply avoid punishment.

These would have generally been the two immediate options; keeping on the enslaved person until their death or sale, but there were other even more horrific avenues available to enslavers. By the antebellum period, states had in place laws preventing enslavers from executing their human property, but enslavers were nothing if not grotesquely creative. Certain jobs were higher risk than others, and an enslaver could have easily placed a disabled slave in situations likely to result in their eventual death, either by assigning dangerous jobs or simply overworking them. Still, I don't know of much scholarship on this last subject, and sources would almost certainly prove difficult to come by.

Hope this answers your question. I've cited my sources below, but I'd definitely recommend you check out Daina Ramey Berry's book in particular, if you're interested in this topic!

Walter Johnson, *Soul By Soul: Life Inside the Antebellum Slave Market*

Richard Follett, *The Sugar Masters: Platers and Slaves in Louisiana's Cane World, 1820-1860*

Daina Ramey Berry, *The Price for Their Pound of Flesh: The Value of the Enslaved, From Womb to Grave, in the Building of a Nation*

u/Axellus151 did not mention that, along with laws against executing slaves, in the early US there were laws against freeing slaves unless they were provided with some means of support, or would be supported by the original owner. Otherwise, owners would be tempted to work them to the point of disability, tell them they were free, and turn them out. After the great cotton boom, however, the Southern states began to make any kind of manumission very difficult.