And that’s where the courts have been, especially more recently, pretty inclusive so anything that could affect a major life activity speech, sleep, your ability to think, and act properly in a social setting, anything that can affect the life activity…
…I think they all kind of believe that their case has a value higher than what a jury might think so I think that at the outset it’s important to set an absolute legal ceiling.
Well what happens is when you put out dangerous drugs and dangerous medical devices like this, the FDA has a forum in which doctors are allowed to, not required to, allowed to report adverse events that they think are related to either a pharmaceutical drug or medical device and what you’ll find is some of them do and some of them don’t. Most of them probably don’t and I’ve heard numbers that something like two percent of adverse events are actually reported.
I mean really, they’re creeping into every facet of the medical practice, the medical world.
…it occurred to me afterward how much better off we would all be if I behaved as if my kids were in the room or somebody else’s kids were in the room watching an attorney do what they do and watching how they do that. It just seems to that there’s a lot to be had from thinking about things that way.
You just want a review on how they felt you handled them as a client and how you communicated with them and how you helped them through the process. When consumers have a legal problem, they become a new legal consumer, but they don’t become new consumers and they’re using different decision-making processes that they do when they’re buying a tv or a computer…
…the workers actually have to notify the railroad like you do in workers’ compensation cases, you have to notify the railroad that you’ve been injured, but you also have to tell the railroad how it happened so that they can determine whether or not they played any role in it.
…it’s taking a good case and then it’s properly investing your time and money into that case to set it up for success so that either it’s resolved beforehand or when you go to trial that this is a case that is really compelling to a jury that you have the evidence to anger them with respect to the medical providers care.
It’s corporations putting profits ahead of patients and what we learned during the course of that case and we’ve learned through other cases, is that they’re forcing the folks who read the slides, the cytotechnologists, to read to many slides in a day and they can’t possibly pick up the abnormalities on all of the slides and what I believe is that the industry is gambling that most women don’t have cervical cancer.