Law Firm to Clients: Unfortunately, You’re Healthy

Wall Street Journal Law Blog ^ | 8/21/2007 | Paul Davies

[MrLegalReform]

A Mississippi plaintiffs firm recently sent out a handful of “good news/bad news” letters to clients in silicosis cases, though it’s a bit hard to tell which bit was intended to be the good news. The individuals, read the letter, “unfortunately” don’t have silicosis, an incurable lung disease. The flip side: no disease means no lawsuit and no potential payout.

[MrLegalReform]

I wish the clients would now sue the law firm. Turnabout is fair play...

[hometoroost]

“unfortunately” don’t have silicosis, an incurable lung disease.

That is most unfortunate - those lawyers have to keep up those $1,200 haircuts, massive homes, extensive plane travel, etc. A lung is a terrible thing to waste when you consider what it could have gained those poor underemployed trial lawyers.

[theDentist]

“unfortunately” you don’t have silicosis, an incurable lung disease.

... but there's always hope. /s

[jdub]

unfortunately, that is not what the letter said at all.

What it did say was that after reviewing the x-ray using currently accepted standards, that a court accepted pulmonologist probably wouldn't testify that the person's condition was not silicosis. Note that it said nothing about there being NO condition, just that now it was not thought to be silicosis.

Nice lawyer bashing though. And as usual, based on nothing.

[hometoroost]

“Unfortunately, the pulmonologist who re-read your chest x-rays determined them to be negative,” according to a copy of the letter the firm is sending clients that was reviewed by the Law Blog. Rog said courts have become “real strict” and that a “more fine-tuned” reading of the x-rays determined that many of its clients weren’t sick.

Many of the clients weren't even sick is what the article said. Gee, unfortunately you actually have to have real, provable damages now to be involved in a suit. It's not enough to have heard of silicosis to qualify for inclusion.

Trial deserve all the heat they can get for the lies they've told about this and asbestosis.

[massgopguy]

“You put a balm on it? Who told you to put a balm on it?”

[longtermmemmory]

Is the author delusional?

The whole POINT of Tort reform is to have only the most valid cases go to court.

I can’t imagine a letter being this flippant. I expect what really happed was a letter declining to represent went out.

Many a lawyer has faced a client who had a dubious case. Dumping these clients is GOOD for legal reform.

[jdub]

you are supposed to have to have real, provable damages to win in ANY lawsuit, Tort reform or not. Here it appears a law firm and a couple of quack doctors were committing fraud. They should have criminal charges filed against them.

[cherry]

my fil was called up by some lawyer agency, sponserd by his former union, and solicited a few "yes'es" and "no's" to a health questionaire and then got awarded several thousand dollars for lung problems, which he does not have....he uses no oxygen, hunts, cuts wood, is very active for 81 yrs old......

I am sure the lawyers made out royally on this....

[hometoroost]

jdub, help me out here first you accused me of lawyer bashing now you want file criminal charges against these guys - which is it? I don’t have a problem with all lawyers and couldn’t do business without the ones I work with. Are you sticking up for the John Edwards of the world or not?

[hometoroost]

That’s one of the funniest Seinfeld episodes of all time.