Re: [MOL] Cheryl Reply! [01512] Medicine On Line

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [MOL] Cheryl Reply!

Dear Lillian:  I'm sorry to disagree with you, my friend, but a contingency 
case does NOT mean the plaintiff doesn't have to pay anything.  It means they 
don't have to pay ATTORNEY fees; they're still held responsible court fees, 
etc.  And attorneys are reluctant to take medical malpractice cases, unless 
they're extremely provable.  This is difficult, especially in the case of a 
protocol.  You pretty much agree to be a guinea pig.  I did.  I'm not sorry, 
either -- but I am sorry that Cheryl's husband's didn't prove successful.  
Sometimes they don't, and sometimes, as we all know, doctors' predictions 
aren't correct.  We can't sue them for being wrong about the time a person 
has left, but we can sue them for doing something to physically  harm us out 
of negligence.  Although Cheryl's husband didn't receive the best care, 
obviously, it would be very difficult to prove the doctors negligent.  I've 
worked several medical malpractice cases.  They're a real challenge for the 
plaintiffs, because doctors, like lawyers, stick together.  

Love, Kathy
This is an automatically-generated notice.  If you'd like to be removed
from the mailing list, please visit the Medicine-On-Line Discussion Forum
at <>, or send an email message to:
with the subject line blank and the body of the message containing the line:
unsubscribe mol-cancer your-email-address
where the phrase your-email-address is replaced with your actual email