Suing for a legitimate reason such as breech of contract, and not doing a job you were paid to do is different from HOLDING SOMEONE RESPONSIBLE FOR SOMETHING THAT WASN'T THEIR FAULT. Your comparison is invalid.
And your stubborness and insensitivity are intractable.
Your initial claim was that you had no sympathy for this woman, not because she didn't suffer an injury, but because she hired an attorney. Now you defend Kaiser who hires teams of attorneys to run people like this widow into bankruptcy on claims that IMO have less legitimacy than hers.
You don't know that Kaiser's position in their own Attorney generated lawsuits against other businesses and people are legitimate or frivilous. You assume because they are a big business that their claims are more valid than the claims of the proletariat injured under their roof or the widows and orphans that they drive into bankruptcy suing to collect for faliure to pay $25 for an asprin.
Well you called this widow an A$$hole and you called her deceased husband and the father of her children a "pussy" because she hired an attorney. I contend that there very well may have been negligence on the Hosptial's part and quite frankly it would be a violation of this mother's duty and obligation to be a good steward to her fatherless children if she had not consulted with an attorney to see whether or not there is a legitimate chance that the hospital can, in some way or other, be held at least partially responsible for her husband's unfortunate accident.
I would go so far as to consider it irresponsible if the mother had not consulted an attorney on this matter. She has two small children to raise without a father. I suppose you think the "A$$hole" mother should give up her "pussy" husband's children for adoption?