That wasn't my point at all. My post is very clear as were the preceeding posts leading up to why I used the phrasing I did.
Of course. That's why I bothered to note there were two cases.
Obviously, I think the thread doesn't comprise a *clear* and objective summary of the cases, the defendants, the gravamen of the respective complaints, summary of evidence and the conclusion of each. But hey, to each his own.
IIRC, in the jury trial, Terri's award was set at 30% of the total damages, because the jury found her 70% at fault. Also, IIRC, it was at that trial that Michael testified he had no idea of any eating disorder. That testimiony (both as to presence or absence of eating disorder, and if she had an eating disorder, Michael's awareness of it) may or may not have been truthful. The evidence doesn't permit a conclusion, except the jury thought she contributed to her condition, and the jury thought some doctors were liable for malpractice.
I speculate that the complaint in the jury trial case was *based on* the doctors not finding or not reporting an electrolyte imbalance, ostensibly brought on by an eating disorder. One might read into that, "No eating disorder, no case."