Posted on 07/26/2005 6:38:49 PM PDT by mfreddy
In February '04 my wife gave birth to a son who suffered a massive brain injury 12 hours after birth. After much counseling and consideration we have decided to consult with a leading med/mal attorney who has been consulting with experts regarding the merits of a possible case against a number of providers that were involved prior to as well as after delivery.
My question is regarding fees. I believe there are general standards regarding fees and I'd like to know what is appropriate and reasonable. Is this something that can be negotiated? The attorney reviewing this matter is a leader and well recognized in the med/mal world and I don't want to offend him. I feel I need to obtain advice in this matter before meeting with him later this week. My wife and I have not entered into any agreements to date and want to be prepared as we approach this subject. His research so far has been extensive and he has agreed to provide this service without charge due to the possible merits of our case.
Thanks to all that can help.
Those are my considerations exactly.
It's the logic of your position. The doctor's attorneys are going to instruct him to volunteer nothing, and to consider the immense liability of a guilty verdict before saying anything at all.
You're viscerally unable to consider the possibility the doctor MIGHT be at fault, but if he is, freddy has NO hope of getting the truth without a lawyer of his own.
Your advice to him is the same as saying weapons are bad so we should unilaterally disarm. VERY bad advice.
Never said the doctor could not be at fault. I have said the malpractice lawyer will do everything in his power to show the doctor was at fault regardless of the facts. his payday, which could be huge - depends on it. There is an old saying - you go to Midas, you get a muffler. You go to a malpractice lawyer, his job is to dig for $$. do you honestly beleive the lawyer would say "I've looked into this, we could win a lot of money in this case, but really the truth is the doctor did nothing wrong." Please.
Yes, strawman. Maybe you don't understand that, but you're doing it. You keep rolling back to the question of whose ethics should be trusted more, the doctor or the lawyer...
That's not the question at all. The question is, who should freddy trust, the doctor's attorney, or freddy's attorney. Your solution is for freddy to have no attorney at all: a position that is tremendously satisfying to you, but horribly dangerous to freddy.
I never claimed you said it. I'm saying you cannot admit the possibility.
I have said the malpractice lawyer will do everything in his power to show the doctor was at fault regardless of the facts.
And the doctor--and the doctor's attorneys--will do everything in their power to show the doctor was NOT at fault regardless of the facts.
Read Mfreddy initial post awhile longer- the attorney is reviewing the case and doing research for free. The fees in question are a percentage of the award.
That is why I suggested INDEPENDENT medical reviewers evaluate the case. No horse in the race. Any lawyer on either side is not interested in facts. I assume you agree.
You are correct. I did not feel a two paragraph description of my situation the appropriate way to post a message. My intent was so highlight the question I can't answer myself. For you to assume that a parent that is dealing with what we're dealing with is out solely for a payday shows how shallow you are. I have not and will not post the intimate details of our son's multiple disabilities for consumption on a public forum. As I stated before, it's personal.
Our reality evolves every day. Should relavant facts indicate to us that this is the road we should travel, a prudent person would go into the situation with as much information as possible.
For you to assume that I'm sitting here plotting my payday shows your character. Pretty sad.
We need a new system, one that doesn't involve lawyers feeding off 40% of the take, and funneling money to elect Democrat politicians. Americans are obviously now hooked on the idea of getting money whenever something bad happens. Maybe no fault insurance of some sort is the answer. Put the lotto ticket as a line item on the hospital bill, and cut out the lawyers. Medical care will then be more affordable and lawyers can find a new line of work that creates value rather than profits off others misfortunes.
Should doctors be the only people whose motives are assumed to be good when employing the services of attorneys?
They have their own horse in the race. They have to answer to hospital adminstrators and malpractice insurance attorneys and themselves about their involvement and formal opinions.
BTW, who is paying these uninvolved medical experts?
Read my earlier thread about North Carolina fund (Basically no fault) for all CP babies to tkae care of them for life. Takes care of al, eliminates lottery system of winners. lobbied hard and defeated by trial lawyers (they got no cut). thanks John Edwards.
Well, good luck and may God be with you.
many will help ouit in this type of situation pro bono at university hospitals. MD's are salaried -take on difficult cases for second opinion, advice, etc. Regarding administrators, malpractice insurance companies answering to, quite simply not true. Number one cause of malpractice suits in the US? like to know? It is one doctor disparaging the work of another. Look it up.
And the doctor--and the doctor's attorneys--will do everything in their power to show the doctor was NOT at fault regardless of the facts.
Finally, we get to the bottom of it.
lawyers are not interewsted in facts. lawyers are interested in winning.
This ws my post;
salbam:This whole thread started out by Mfreddy asking how to split the $$ with a lawyer.
You stomp on your own point. What good is the opinion of an "independent" medical expert if his incentive is to avoid the #1 cause of malpractice suits (if his incentive is to avoid disparaging the work of another)?
Regarding administrators, malpractice insurance companies answering to, quite simply not true.
You have no proof, but your post suggests the opposite of this claim.
many will help ouit in this type of situation pro bono at university hospitals. MD's are salaried -take on difficult cases for second opinion, advice, etc.
You still cannot or will not address why you think that only mfreddy should not be represented by counsel. Out of all these people with staff attorneys or lawyers on retainer, only mfreddy is to be criticized for involving a lawyer.
could read it eaither way my friend
Doctors' lawyers are no more interested in facts than plaintiffs' attorneys. Their incentives are identical.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.