Actually, I've had a little different take. In the malpractice suit MS and his hired experts testified in support of their request for damages that Terri had an expected life span of 51 years, their intention was to provide for her care for this time period and, therefore, funds to maintain Terri was required for this time period.
However, immediately after the malpractice suit was completed and the funds for her long term care were received, MS proceeded to attempt to end her life and actively reduce the actual time period of care.
It would seem to me that this inconsistency - MS's avowed intention to provide care as compared to his subsequent attempt to eliminate the need for such care - would be grounds for a demand of the unexpended portion of funds awarded for the care that was not required.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies
Like minds? :) I never saw it.