so you were considering suing because they ran tests on you that you and some dipstick insurance “professional” thought didn’t need to be performed?
excuse me? your “cause of action” would be they took too good care of you?
If the tests hadn’t been run and you croaked, (a huge percentage of people do die from their first heart attack)your family would have jumped to the conclusion that the test would have definitely identified your problem and prevented your untimely demise.
YOU ASSUMED THE HOSPITAL DID SOMETHING WRONG, RIGHT? Just like everybody who doesn’t recognize death is normal, ya gotta croak from something, and that anytime someone doesn’t die, it is a freaking miracle.
YOU ASSUMED THE HOSPITAL DID SOMETHING WRONG, RIGHT?
Who said anything about suing? I was contesting the $30,000 in unnecessary testing that appeared on my $100,000 bill. My insurance company disallowed the expenses. My consultant agreed with my insurance company. And the doctors admitted that if it weren't for the malpractice exposure, they would not have conducted those particular tests -- my medical record didn't support the need for those later tests.
I particularly like your line "your 'cause of action' would be they took too good care of you?" Actually, they exposed me to risks that weren't warranted by the information in my chart. Not every test is harmless. When it can do harm and also not show anything useful, that's "something wrong."
Don't take my word for it. My doctor admitted it. The administrator admitted it. If they were guided by enforceable-in-court best practices and not malpractice case law, the doctors would never would have put me through that MRI for example.
And even thought it's none of your business: the tests were unrelated to my heart condition. I was already long past the dying part.
And five years later, I'm still paying off the hospital.